Well, as a lot of you already know, the PACT act was signed which makes it illegal to ship tobacco to consumers. Now my question, does that include the tobacco "juice" that we buy as well? I mean, it is a liquid form of tobacco, so I'm wondering if we're screwed like our analog brethren as well? Anybody got anything on that?
PACT Act and ecig "tobacco."
- Thread starter Schmoe
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well depending on the state they have an "other" tobacco section.
Seems like for example in my state they added the other provision and increased taxing moist smokeless to a point of wtf on jan 1 2010.
Seems like for example in my state they added the other provision and increased taxing moist smokeless to a point of wtf on jan 1 2010.
No problem, it's not a tobacco product, ask the FDA. It's an unapproved medical device component.
My legal comprehension skills may not be up to par, but the wording of the PACT ACT does not exclusively prohibit the USPS from shipping cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Maybe I'm reading the wrong version. I've looked at several different versions and that particular "non-mailable" section discussing the USPS still basically says the same thing.
In summary it says the business must comply with all new laws including the new shipping label instructions and must have already paid all excise taxes before shipping the product. Also, the recipient must be a verified adult of 18+, and the business can't be on the "non-mailable list" due to previous infractions, and of course it has the new anti-terrorist references in it. So... if you're not on the "non-mailable list", and you have authorization to ship, then you can still use the USPS.
All they want to do is cut down on smuggling, make sure all taxes are paid, avoid sale to minors, and make sure the paperwork is a real pain in the ....... Sounds like typical government redtape to me.
There's other things in it I really don't like, such as... a limit to how much you can mail in weight (10 ounces, if it's RYO), a limit on how many cigarettes can be mailed (12 packs), and the consumer can't order more than that within a 30 day period from the same supplier (which means if you want 24 packs, then you have to order them from 2 different suppliers).
I guess e-liquid would be considered as "smokeless tobacco" too [in the future], but it's not specifically mentioned in the Act. How would you convert 10 ounces of tobacco into 10 ounces of e-liquid when the 2 are nothing like the same anyway?
In summary it says the business must comply with all new laws including the new shipping label instructions and must have already paid all excise taxes before shipping the product. Also, the recipient must be a verified adult of 18+, and the business can't be on the "non-mailable list" due to previous infractions, and of course it has the new anti-terrorist references in it. So... if you're not on the "non-mailable list", and you have authorization to ship, then you can still use the USPS.
All they want to do is cut down on smuggling, make sure all taxes are paid, avoid sale to minors, and make sure the paperwork is a real pain in the ....... Sounds like typical government redtape to me.
There's other things in it I really don't like, such as... a limit to how much you can mail in weight (10 ounces, if it's RYO), a limit on how many cigarettes can be mailed (12 packs), and the consumer can't order more than that within a 30 day period from the same supplier (which means if you want 24 packs, then you have to order them from 2 different suppliers).
I guess e-liquid would be considered as "smokeless tobacco" too [in the future], but it's not specifically mentioned in the Act. How would you convert 10 ounces of tobacco into 10 ounces of e-liquid when the 2 are nothing like the same anyway?
Last edited:
The PACT Act specifically defines the products it covers. And that does not include ecig liquid, or ecigs as a whole.
The definitions of what the PACT Act actually covers has been posted before, by me and others, but I guess it bears repeating:
From: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/37029-u-s-pact-act-2009-a-19.html#post751330
To cut off the next argument at the pass: I am not stating that TPTB could not amend the PACT Act in the future to cover ecigs/eliquid, if and when ecigs/eliquid do get legally defined as "tobacco products", and if and when TPTB get taxation statutes passed that would cover ecigs/eliquid, but all of that is still years away.
What I am stating is that the PACT Act, as currently written, simply does not in any way cover or involve our vaping products.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Schmoe wrote:
Well, as a lot of you already know, the PACT act was signed which makes it illegal to ship tobacco to consumers.
That statement is NOT correct, as the PACT only applies to "cigarettes" and "smokeless tobacco products".
If/when the FDA classifies and proposes regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products (as we've been urging them to do), the FDA isn't going to classify e-cigarettes as "cigarettes" or "smokeless tobacco products".
Please stop posting inaccurate notes on this website.
Well, as a lot of you already know, the PACT act was signed which makes it illegal to ship tobacco to consumers.
That statement is NOT correct, as the PACT only applies to "cigarettes" and "smokeless tobacco products".
If/when the FDA classifies and proposes regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products (as we've been urging them to do), the FDA isn't going to classify e-cigarettes as "cigarettes" or "smokeless tobacco products".
Please stop posting inaccurate notes on this website.
I haven't read it but from previous Gov. issues I feel as long as they're getting their tax dollars and it's not going to minors I believe they will leave us alone. They say you can't fight city hall. They need to change that saying to Don't mess with our money. In Washington they made it so the tribal stores have to charge Washington State and federal taxes on tabacco products. They can keep the money, they're not required to give it to the gov. as long as they just make sure and charge the taxes. Isn't that something?
What do you think the chances are that the FDA and the Feds might finally consider regulating ecigs as a tobacco product, then asking Congress to amend the PACT act, as so many legislatures seem to be doing to their own tobacco laws, to include ecigs and ejuice?
Seems to me the quickest way to deal a heavy blow to the industry by adding all sorts of shipping / documentation red tape?
I don't really think they will consider regulating as tobacco products until they exhaust the legal avenues of their current claim of drug device, but thinking like a Gov agent for a moment, I might have this scenario as my backup.
This E-cig is saving my health and my life and many of my friends and family's health/life's if you do anything to make this hard to do then you are as much a killer as Phillip Morris Thanks Bud
This E-cig is saving my health and my life and many of my friends and family's health/life's if you do anything to make this hard to do then you are as much a killer as Phillip Morris Thanks Bud
Umm, Bill is on our side, 100%. He is most certainly not trying to stop ecigs from being available, in fact it is exactly the opposite. He is working extremely hard to protect our right to vape. Its the FDA that is trying to make this hard, not Bill, by any stretch. He is merely trying to make sure people have the legal facts, and not be mislead by false statements about the law, both present and future.
If I misread your post, ignore me. We all are in the same uncertain boat right now. And yes, the insanity of these being banned boggles the mind, but then money talks, and we vapers are costing several big players a lot of money right now (BT, BP, the State, the cancer industry)
Might as well prepare for the future and make arrangements for a different mail carrier. Well, you know, just in case the PACT ACT gets amended to include the e-cig drug delivery device specifically. That is if they don't get banned first.
- Status
Similar threads
