Crud, didn't copy/paste correctly. Read the section on delivering. There are a lot more restrictions. Including age verifacation.
Nobody is gonna probably like this...
- Thread starter Pure Guava
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
it all comes down to money, we all know that. it just kills me that they want to regulate e-cigs like they do tobacco products, arent they making enough money off them?! go out and get your hands on a quality PV and lets hope this thing turns out in our favor. on the brite side we have celebritys showing up in magazines and on the late show with letterman who will help get the public informed on the benefits of our struggle. ttyl
Ahhhhhh! Thank You! Now I'm gonna go crawl back into my cave....
Ask me how I know this. I posted the same thing you did. I left a few beers in the cave. Help yourself.
You still seem to not be getting the point of my post. Those USPS restrictions you quote are now in existence specifically because of the PACT Act.
But the PACT Act ONLY applies to "cigarettes" and "smokeless tobacco products". BOTH of those terms are specifially DEFINED in the PACT Act, and neither definition would apply to e-cigs - EVEN IF OR WHEN e-cigs were classified by the FDA as "tobacco products".
It's been a while since I've read the PACT Act, but I'm pretty sure e-cigs would be defined as smokeless tobacco products. I mean, we've spent so much time trying to point out that there is NO smoke. Granted, the wouldn't fit the definition of cigarettes, but the would easily fit the smokeless tobacco part.
You're not getting it either. When I said that the term "smokeless tobacco" product was specifically defined in the PACT Act, and would not include e-cigs, that was based on the statute itself, NOT on a guess.
Here is the PACT Act definition of "smokeless tobacco" products:
"SMOKELESS TOBACCO- The term ‘smokeless tobacco’ means any finely cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco, or other product containing tobacco, that is intended to be placed in the oral or nasal cavity or otherwise consumed without being combusted."
Read The Bill: S. 1147 - GovTrack.us
As you can see for yourself, the above definition would NOT include e-cigs! They may well be considered a "tobacco product" under the FSPTCA, which is defined as anything "made or derived" from tobacco, as the liquid is indeed derived from tobacco, and they are indeed "smokeless", but they indisputedly do not contain tobacco itself.
Everyone needs to realize that you cannot discuss the impact or application of ANY law without looking at the law itself, and especially its definitional provisions.
Last edited:
I had a big reply typed out and lost it. Instead of typing it all out again I'm just going to make this short and sweet.
We are pushing for e-cigs to be considered tobacco products. While it would be nice to have it considered a tobacco product for regulations but a non tobacco product due to other regulations, I doubt that will happen. Everything is up to interpretation. If e-cigs are considered a tobacco product because the nicotine is derived from tobacco, it is not a far leap to assume they will consider a "tobacco product" "contains tobacco".
Nothing is cut and dry in the world of law, as evidenced by the fact that the supreme court still to this day has to interpret various parts of the constitution.
We all hope we don't lose our flavors. I hate preaching doomsday rhetoric. I simply believe that people should realize that it can be a possibility, even though Your interpretation of the law says it's not. Our interpretation doesn't matter. How we read the law is a moot point to those actually interpreting them.
We are pushing for e-cigs to be considered tobacco products. While it would be nice to have it considered a tobacco product for regulations but a non tobacco product due to other regulations, I doubt that will happen. Everything is up to interpretation. If e-cigs are considered a tobacco product because the nicotine is derived from tobacco, it is not a far leap to assume they will consider a "tobacco product" "contains tobacco".
Nothing is cut and dry in the world of law, as evidenced by the fact that the supreme court still to this day has to interpret various parts of the constitution.
We all hope we don't lose our flavors. I hate preaching doomsday rhetoric. I simply believe that people should realize that it can be a possibility, even though Your interpretation of the law says it's not. Our interpretation doesn't matter. How we read the law is a moot point to those actually interpreting them.
The PACT Act is not a "regulation". It is a law. And the application of ANY given law depends on the particular definitional language of the law itself.
And what you are missing is that the PACT Act was NOT written to apply to "tobacco products" generically.
It was written, as you can see by looking at the law itself, to apply to two specifically defined classes of tobacco products - to traditional cigarettes, and to "smokeless tobacco" products, AS DEFINED in the Act itself, as quoted above. It does not apply to cigars, and it does not apply to pipe tobacco, both "tobacco products" for sure. It does apply, however, to roll your own cigarette tobacco, as that is also written into the definition of "cigarettes" for purposes of the Act.
That is the only point I'm making. I never said the PACT Act couldn't be amended to include e-cigs at some future point in time, if Congress wants e-cigs to be included in its prohibitions.
Nor did I say anything about e-cigs and other kinds of regulation, such as the regulation they WILL be subject to if the FDA decides to, or is forced by the courts to, accept them as "tobacco products" as defined by the FSPTCA.
But I am telling you that e-cigs, albeit deemed "tobacco products" under the FSPTCA, are simply and absolutely not includable in the PACT Act as it is currently written. That is not a matter of interpretation - it's a matter of the plain language of the statute, and its definition of the "smokeless tobacco" products it was intended to reach. "Interpretation" only comes into play when there is some statutory ambiguity, and there is nothing ambiguous about the PACT Act's definition of the "smokeless tobacco" products it includes in its provisions - being chew, snuff, snus, dissolvables, and the newer orbs and strips.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
