U.S.A: PACT Act 2009

[oldlady]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I read the PACT ACT:

1. Neither e-cigarettes nor nic-liquid fall into the very specific definitions included in the text of the act. Thus, an entirely new round of legislation would be needed to amend the act to cover them.

2. The text does not ban anything. It merely requires that federal and state taxes be paid on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products (snuff and snuz) sent through the U.S. postal service. Thus, if you want to mail your friend a pack of cigarettes, you must label the package according to government instructions, and your friend has to present a picture ID and pay the taxes to receive the package.

Okay, so no more buying cartons from Ukraine off the Internet. Sucks, but there you have it. I wonder whether the legislation applies to packages sent via FedEx, DHL or other carriers?

Anyway, I agree with others that the goverment will need to spend a lot of time and money to enforce the new law--probably more than it will collect in additional revenues. Based on this assumption alone, I would oppose the PACT Act even if I was a non-smoker.

Who knows perhaps someone in the U.S. Senate has some common sense?

 

[Slickstick]

Who knows perhaps someone in the U.S. Senate has some common sense?

 

[Stubby]

Oldlady: Not quite there, My understanding is this

The USPSl will not ship any tobacco products except cigars (I believe USPS will ship cigars but I'm not sure about that one). The only way to ship tobacco will be through a private carrier (UPS, FedEx, etc). Taxes are paid at the point of sale, not when the package is received, and yes age verification when the package is received.

 

[Webby]

Oldlady: Not quite there, My understanding is this

The USPSl will not ship any tobacco products except cigars (I believe USPS will ship cigars but I'm not sure about that one). The only way to ship tobacco will be through a private carrier (UPS, FedEx, etc). Taxes are paid at the point of sale, not when the package is received, and yes age verification when the package is received.

Big issue there - which carriers actually do any kind of age verification?

 

[ladysolitary85]

I think we should have a memorial service for Jules. She gave her life for the benefit of all e-cig users. Maybe an ECF medal is in order too.

8-o Where DID Jule's go anyways???

We will know soon... hopefully.

 

[Slickstick]

She's either in the hospital, or dead. She attempted to make this stuff herself from store bought tobacco, so she claims. I would assume something bad happened because I haven't seen her on the other forums either. (on my sig) Which I believe she may be the founder of.

 

[ladysolitary85]

She's either in the hospital, or dead. She attempted to make this stuff herself from store bought tobacco, so she claims. I would assume something bad happened because I haven't seen her on the other forums either. (on my sig) Which I believe she may be the founder of.

Well lets not think the worst just yet. Give it a day if she doesn't pop up then worry. Something else could have popped up.

 

[JustJulie]

Oldlady: Not quite there, My understanding is this

The USPSl will not ship any tobacco products except cigars (I believe USPS will ship cigars but I'm not sure about that one). The only way to ship tobacco will be through a private carrier (UPS, FedEx, etc). Taxes are paid at the point of sale, not when the package is received, and yes age verification when the package is received.

To add yet another wrinkle to the story, it is my understanding that DHL, UPS, and FedEx have voluntarily agreed not to ship tobacco products. This has been going on for a few years now.

 

[Slickstick]

its all good we will just label them differently if we have to. The smaller companies will stay in business.

 

[TropicalBob]

JustJulie, I've read the same thing. This is a move to stop interstate delivery of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to individuals. Businesses that sell must register and keep records -- and collect taxes. They can get delivery. But the postal service will be forbidden to deliver to a private residence, and all other carriers (FedEX, DHL, UPS, etc) have agreed not to deliver tobacco products.

It is NOT "all good." And it would take a fool to defy a regulation like this and face the wrath of an angry federal agency that can levy a huge fine for a single violation. No, this is not all good at all.

Yvilla, might there be fine print somewhere about delivery of nicotine products? I haven't read it all, but how hard would it be to declare e-liquid a hazardous substance that cannot be mailed because it contains a toxic poison and addictive substance? I agree e-cigs are not named in the PACT act. But I can't see the government just looking the other way if e-cigs are overlooked.

 

[Slickstick]

I believe safe mg's should be allowed but he problem would be identifying which bottle's would be unsafe.

It's only going to keep going further underground if they stop it. They will treat it like ........

 

[yvilla]

Yvilla, might there be fine print somewhere about delivery of nicotine products? I haven't read it all, but how hard would it be to declare e-liquid a hazardous substance that cannot be mailed because it contains a toxic poison and addictive substance? I agree e-cigs are not named in the PACT act. But I can't see the government just looking the other way if e-cigs are overlooked.

Hey TBob, yes I agree it would not be difficult at all to target e-cigs - it's just that they are not currently in the picture at all as far as the PACT Act goes. Moreover, if we look beyond the language of the Act to its essential purpose - to ensure the collection of tobacco taxes on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, the products that currently most commonly get trafficked in huge numbers in evasion of those taxes - then we can see why the PACT Act is not a big concern to us right now. For e-cigs don't even exist as a classification within the tobacco taxing statutes (at least not yet).

Also, as you already know we've got much bigger problems to worry about at this point anyway, and that is of course the whole FDA regulation/prohibition issue, no matter which way Judge Leon's decision goes. I'm just still very hopeful that it does not come down on the "drug" product side, and that then e-cig marketers will find their way through the minefield of the FSPTCA's "reduced exposure" and/or "modified risk" products provisions, toward the goal of lawful sales here in the US.

 

[Webby]

Yvilla, might there be fine print somewhere about delivery of nicotine products? I haven't read it all, but how hard would it be to declare e-liquid a hazardous substance that cannot be mailed because it contains a toxic poison and addictive substance? I agree e-cigs are not named in the PACT act. But I can't see the government just looking the other way if e-cigs are overlooked.

With a stroke of a pen "...and electronic cigarettes" could be added to any bill. I still maintain that Uncle Sam isn't going to let manufacturers make and ship an unregulated (potentially toxic) home brew forever and Judge Leon is certainly not going to tell us to just go about our business.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

With a stroke of a pen "...and electronic cigarettes" could be added to any bill. I still maintain that Uncle Sam isn't going to let manufacturers make and ship an unregulated (potentially toxic) home brew forever and Judge Leon is certainly not going to tell us to just go about our business.

Webby--LOL--the flavorings can not be shipped other then ground do to its low flashpoint---wonder what they are going to do with nicotine laced flavoring?


Sun

 

[Stubby]

and all other carriers (FedEX, DHL, UPS, etc) have agreed not to deliver tobacco products.

I would like to see a link to that. I haven't been able to find anything. Even snus central hasn't mentioned it, and they tend towards the paranoid side. Are you sure it's not just an internet rumor?

 

[JustJulie]

I would like to see a link to that. I haven't been able to find anything. Even snus central hasn't mentioned it, and they tend towards the paranoid side. Are you sure it's not just an internet rumor?

H.R. 1676: To prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all tobacco taxes, and for other purposes (PACT Act) - Legislative Digest - GOP.gov

Scroll down to "background," and you'll see a reference to several major private carriers agreeing not to ship tobacco.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

H.R. 1676: To prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all tobacco taxes, and for other purposes (PACT Act) - Legislative Digest - GOP.gov

Scroll down to "background," and you'll see a reference to several major private carriers agreeing not to ship tobacco.

Nice find Jukie:

"Several major private shipping companies, such as UPS, DSL, and FedEx, do not ship tobacco products. Currently, most orders for tobacco made over the internet in the U.S. are shipped using the USPS"

Sun

 

[Stubby]

Nice find Jukie:

"Several major private shipping companies, such as UPS, DSL, and FedEx, do not ship tobacco products. Currently, most orders for tobacco made over the internet in the U.S. are shipped using the USPS"

Sun

That is simply not true. I get snus orders from UPS all the time. This is an email received from a snus forum member from UPS on this very question

Here's what I found out from UPS. Read it for yourselves, mystery solved, lol. They've decided not to deliver cigarettes. Other tobacco products are fine as long as the delivery seller has a contract with UPS.

Dear *****,

Thank you for your question about shipping tobacco products. UPS appreciates the business of all its customers, and makes every prudent effort to provide for their needs. The following are specific limitations for the shipment of tobacco products within the UPS system:

- Shipments of tobacco products will only be accepted from licensed dealers or distributors.

- Shipments of tobacco products from consumers are prohibited.

- Shipping of tobacco products from licensed dealers and distributors to consumers will be a contract only service.

- Shipments between licensed dealers or distributors will not require a contract.

- Shipments of tobacco products cannot be shipped using One Time Pickup or On Call Pickups.


As a result of these changes, tobacco products can not be shipped from any UPS retail shipping outlet. The UPS retail shipping outlets are: locations of The UPS Store or Mail Boxes Etc., Customer Centers, Authorized Shipping Outlets (ASOs), Alliance partners (Staples and Office Depot locations), and Commercial Counters. The only exception is for The UPS Store or Mail Boxes Etc. locations where a sales representative or employee of a tobacco company is returning a tobacco shipment back to the company and utilizes any UPS Return Service.

Our tobacco policy also includes changes due to the changes in state regulations restricting the sale and/or transportation of cigarettes. During this time, we’ve made extensive efforts to comply with all the different regulations, but have come to a point where this is no longer feasible given the size and scope of our global operations. UPS made the business decision to discontinue delivery of cigarettes direct to consumers in order to establish a consistent policy that will work best within this patchwork of differing state requirements on shippers, carriers and recipients.

For additional information regarding the shipment of tobacco products, please visit the following link:

UPS: Shipping Tobacco


Please contact us if you need any additional assistance.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

That is simply not true. I get snus orders from UPS all the time. This is an email received from a snus forum member from UPS on this very question

Stubby---LOL--I copy and pasted it from the article. If a company wants to breach the standards then so be it--but the facts are what they are.

Sun

 

[Stubby]

Stubby---LOL--I copy and pasted it from the article. If a company wants to breach the standards then so be it--but the facts are what they are.

Sun

Did you actually read the above email. UPS does not ship cigarettes but does ship other tobacco products as in smokeless tobacco. No one is breaching any standards. The article is wrong in that it said tobacco instead of cigarettes.

This is a rumor that has been floating around for some time that has no basis in reality.