U.S.A: PACT Act 2009

[Outlander]

mailing is a lot different than using a courier services so it would up the cost to get the shipment but they would still be able to get pass the no mailing that way.. just like I can not mail a contagious virus but a courier could deliver it legally.

to bypass online sales.. 1. phone in orders.. 2. a catalog with a order form.

Well they actually have that covered also in the "Delivery Sale" clause and definition, meaning any sale in which the seller is not face to face with the buyer.

‘(5) DELIVERY SALE- The term ‘delivery sale’ means any sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to a consumer if--


‘(A) the consumer submits the order for the sale by means of a telephone or other method of voice transmission, the mails, or the Internet or other online service, or the seller is otherwise not in the physical presence of the buyer when the request for purchase or order is made; or
‘(B) the cigarettes or smokeless tobacco are delivered to the buyer by common carrier, private delivery service, or other method of remote delivery, or the seller is not in the physical presence of the buyer when the buyer obtains possession of the cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.

But from what I can tell, they are still only referring to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products in the original terms which do not atm include the e-cigs and e-juices.

(1) the term “cigarette” means—
(A) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; and
(B) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in subparagraph (A);

(6) the term “smokeless tobacco” means any finely cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco that is intended to be placed in the oral or nasal cavity or otherwise consumed without being combusted;

 

[Outlander]

Any further restrictions on purchase and delivery of tobacco products will impact e-smoking down the road, if not immediately. And if the court should declare e-cigs a tobacco product, then the delivery impact would follow passage of PACT.

Please ... never, never use the incorrect phrase "right to vape". There is no such right, by any stretch of the imagination.

We are seeking to legalize a new alternative to cigarette smoking, a safer way of obtaining nicotine without the known health hazards of inhaling smoke. That's a common goal most can support. Even being tactful and truthful, we have out work cut out for us. "Right to vape" makes our practice a joke.

Any further restrictions on purchase and delivery of tobacco products will impact e-smoking down the road, if not immediately. And if the court should declare e-cigs a tobacco product, then the delivery impact would follow passage of PACT.

Please ... never, never use the incorrect phrase "right to vape". There is no such right, by any stretch of the imagination.

We are seeking to legalize a new alternative to cigarette smoking, a safer way of obtaining nicotine without the known health hazards of inhaling smoke. That's a common goal most can support. Even being tactful and truthful, we have out work cut out for us. "Right to vape" makes our practice a joke.

Bob,

I know it is an old post, buy I have to take the other view in this. Up and until the point when something becomes unlawful, it is legal. Being legal, we therefore have the right to partake. Saying that we don't have the right to vape because there is no legislation giving us that right by legalizing its use, is like saying we don't have a right to eat.

We do not need to Legalize or license the act of Vaping, the PV or the pure e-juices (0 nic). The only thing that should be allowed to be regulated would be the nic or juices containing nic.

What we need to do is prevent the regulation and subjugation of all e-products excepting those that contain a tobacco or derivative.

 

[Dredbull]

Grab your ankles laddies and lasses!!

Looks like presachump signed it.. I sure hope it is a freaking april fools joke.

 

[NuGalicia]

Early in the thread someone asked what's the strongest you could get. I found 99% pure on a chinese site called jgherb.

 

[davidzx]

A ruling for the PACT Act is pending, and many politicians see their good standing compromised if they don't consent to this initiative. Once it is passed, the passage of time is their plentiful harvest in reaping of the rewards of their most valued initiative. Irrespectively, beneath fast growing tall grass is indicative of the manure beneath it. The passage of the politicians abundant season of disregard for the factual data and truth will be embraced with an inevitable season of accountability. In wake of all beliefs, opinions, and agendas:

WE THE PEOPLE embrace other innovative approaches beyond those already tried offering promising solutions to alleviate tobacco harm

WE THE PEOPLE condemn all illicit works to foster tobacco harm fatalities in such manner.

WE THE PEOPLE heave in wake of any initiative to limit the options we have to quit smoking.

WE THE PEOPLE

PETITION EXCLUSIVE ATTENTION ABOVE POLITICAL GOOD STANDING, IN WAKE OF ALL ODDS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, FOR THE SAKE OF UPHOLDING THE VIRTUES OF ETHICALITY, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT, AND SO THAT MISTAKEN LEGISLATIVE AGENDAS DO NOT TRANSPIRE IN CONTRA TO THE TRUTH - AND OUR ACCOUNTABILITY IS LESSENED THEREOF.

Sorry I got way to political there, but I'll give up before my fingers snap at the keyboard. Hope you guys like the cognizant argument, maybe a template for a petition. All in all, someone please remove these airhead savage animals from executive offices. They're a liability to my health and public welfare in general. If someone doesn't realize this and eradicate brainless fools from the offices they don't have the intelligence to deserve - then what direction is our country headed in? Well so far its near a depression - someone wake up and do something.