There's an issue with shipping via USPS that has nothing to do with state law, but the logistics of the PACT act. If the vendor can't get that worked out for a given state, then they can't ship there. There are a number of states affected, not just NY and California. The only thing I can say is God bless Texas.
US Vape Mail Ban - And What comes Next -->
- Thread starter CloudyFutures
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
UPDATE:
HeavenGifts - Discontinues Retail to ALL Consumers. They will only do wholesale B2B
ecig-city.com - The site is gone. Presumed that they went out of business in the US. UK site is still operational.
HeavenGifts - Discontinues Retail to ALL Consumers. They will only do wholesale B2B
ecig-city.com - The site is gone. Presumed that they went out of business in the US. UK site is still operational.
UPDATE:
White Cloud Electronic Cigarettes - Closes its online doors.
Source: White Cloud Ends Online Sales Due to Mail Ban - Tobacco Reporter
White Cloud Electronic Cigarettes - Closes its online doors.
Source: White Cloud Ends Online Sales Due to Mail Ban - Tobacco Reporter
San Francisco banned the sale and distribution of all vapor products in the city in 2019. The ordinance includes banning the shipment of any purchased vapor products to an address within the city limits: https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7111897&GUID=7C3912E3-BB56-420D-896E-6FEA1391287D
It's the laaaaaaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
And the homeeeeeee of the braaaaaaaaaaaaaveeeeeeeeeeeeeee
And the homeeeeeee of the braaaaaaaaaaaaaveeeeeeeeeeeeeee
That puts the onus on vendors all over the country to know the laws of every city and state in the union. What's to stop me, if I were say a Texas vendor, shipping to an address in SF? The responsibility then lies with the buyer? The law doesn't indicate that. That aspect of the law would be hard to enforce except for possibly intrastate commerce. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but they'd want to go after some big sellers, and there are few of those in the US thanks to PACT.
To me it looks like the suits want something, anything, on paper so if they want or need to they can just say, "You know you weren't supposed to sell or ship [anything vape related] there." or "You know you weren't supposed to buy anything like that"..
I have no idea how they intended to enforce the law. My guess is they hoped retailers would voluntarily stop shipping to the city - and it seems to have (somewhat) worked, as at least some retailers will no longer ship there. I'm 100% certain that a lot of vapor products get shipped there that the-powers-that-be don't know about!
One way is the SF District Attorney's Office asked the State/County/City to revoke your Tobacco/Business License.
But that is after Warning Letters are Sent to the Retailer.
That makes sense with enforcement within the city, but how they expected to enforce the "no shipping to addresses in the city" from other parts of the state and other states was what I was questioning. (Sorry for not being clear on that.)
I agree. The enforcement aspect of that law has no teeth. They cant pull an out of state tobacco license and the licensing state isn't likely to do so based complaints from a city attorney.
Looking at what I Posted, I think I was the one who Wasn't Clear.
Regarding a Retailer shipping to SF, it all gets back to the PACT Act and the California Cigarette and Tobacco Products Retailer and Distributor License.
Other Requirements for Delivery Sellers (direct sales to consumers)
A “delivery sale” is defined, in part, as any sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, or ENDS to a consumer. If you are a delivery seller, and plan to make delivery sales of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, or ENDS in California, you must apply for a California Cigarette and Tobacco Products Retailer and Distributor License. Essentially, as a delivery seller, you must comply with all California laws regarding the sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products, and ENDS into the state as if you were located in the state.
Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the assessment of penalties or civil action brought by the Office of the California Attorney General.
Cigarette & Tobacco Products Internet Program
Usually what happens is a if a Retailer is found to have Shipped something Prohibitive to someone in California, they would receive a not so nice Cease and Desist letter with a Bear in the Seal informing them that they are in Violation of bla bla bla Section bla bla bla of the California Code bla bla bal and are in Risk of Loosing their CA "Tobacco License" as well as possible Criminal Actions.
This Letter can also be sent to the Retailers Shipping Company(s), Credit Card Processors, Banks, Web Site Providers, etc as well as to the State Attorney General's Office of the State the Retailer shipped from.
Retailers know that they likely will be Drowned in Lawyers Fees if California decides to Open Up a can of Legal Whoop-Azz on them. So most Retailers will just reply to the letter say'n... "We're Sorry. It was a Mistake in our Shipping Software which has be rectified. It Won't Happen again.".
As to the Actual Ability for the State of California to win a Judgement against an Out-of-State Company over something like this? That is Possible.
This was in the News about 2 Weeks ago..
Vermont To Receive $157,500 from Online Vaping Retailers - Office of the Vermont Attorney General
Last edited:
I noticed that they listed the "offenders" in order of highest to lowest cha-ching factor.
What I thought would have been Cool is if the AG had disclosed How Much it cost the State of Vermont to get that $157,000 settlement?
- Status
Similar threads
