Welp, I currently have a few hundred dollars worth of stuff in the process of being shipped here via USPS. I wonder how this will all go down.
US Vape Mail Ban - USPS/FedEx/UPS/DHL
- Thread starter UncLeJunkLe
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
They could however stop making it available directly to end users and require a business license or whatever they deem necessary to work into what they want.
No, there's plenty of end users that use it. It's used in DIY cosmetics, for example. PG is used in farming as a feed supplement which is why it is available at Tractor Supply.
Completely Agree.
But I also think that a "Vape" Company could see Discretionary Enforcement against them if for some reason their company came under a Regulatory Spotlight.
I also think that the USPS will be looking to Make an Example out of someone early on. So as to make it Appear that they are Aggressively Enforcing the will of congress.
Nothing says "Give Us Increased Funding" like handing a Few Heads on Pikes to those who want them.
So can anyone here summarize this new ruling by the usps? Please and thank you! I tried looking though the numerous pages but I don't have a law degree.
As it appears from the Final Unpublished Rule draft, any e-Liquid that contains Nicotine are going to be Expressly Banned from being Shipped via the USPS. Beit 1mg/ml MTL e-Liquid to 250mg/ml Nicotine Base.
This would also apply to any "Kit" of Hardware and Nicotine containing e-Liquids. Like a Vuse Solo say.
A 0mg e-Liquid sold from a "Vape" Shop may or May Not be Ban Enforced. Same with something like CBD Carts.
à la carte Hardware I think is Anyone's Guess? And we might see some being Rejected. Where the same Hardware from another Retailer sails right thru.
Vape companies can no longer ship using USPS in the US.. They have to use alternative shipping companies now...
I received an email today from Electronic Tobbacconist that says today is the last day they can ship USPS, with a cutoff of 2mp MST. Whether it's a marketing tactic or will be happening everywhere is the question.
I'm Not sure I would Paint with such a Wide Brush.
The Determining Factor (IMO) is Not going to be if the are a Vape Company. But what they want to put in a Box and have the USPS send down the road for them.
That... and How much "Letter of the Law" the USPS chooses to apply?
How many are even going to try now? Vaping.com won't, and that's likely to be typical
It's Hard to say?
Take someone who has Exclusively sold DIY Flavorings. And related DIY Supplies. Should they Close their doors just because they are Affiliated with the e-Cigarette Market. But have Never sold a product that actually contains Nicotine?
Same with Retailers who just sell Hardware?
Not saying things are going to be Hunky Dory. But I think Some/Many will try to see just where the Edge of the Envelope actually is.
And of course, No Matter what happens, there will be those who say they are Injured Parties. And will seek Remedies thru the Courts.
From the Unplublished Final Rule Draft ...
[Page 100]
2. Reasonable Cause
The PACT Act bars the acceptance or transmission of mailed packages as to which the Postal Service “knows or has reasonable cause to believe contains” matter made nonmailable by the PACT Act. 18 U.S.C. 1716E(a)(1). “Reasonable cause” can be based upon certain public statements of intent to mail nonmailable items or the presence of a person on the Noncompliant List. Id. at (a)(2). Under the Postal Service’s longstanding PACT Act regulations, the presence of reasonable cause imposes on the mailer a burden of establishing eligibility to mail. Publication 52 section 472.1. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Postal Service noted that the statute’s use of “includes” before these enumerations of “reasonable cause” plainly indicates that the list is illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and the Postal Service proposed to make explicit in its regulations the possibility that other indicia regarding a package, individually or in combination with other packages,
may give rise to reasonable cause. 86 FR at 10219. In the highly circumstantial context of ENDS products, the Postal Service further proposed to elaborate on the burden-shifting principle by calling for affirmative, credible, and verifiable indications of mailability in order to dispel the presumed nonmailability of such products. Id. at 10219–10220. Some anti-ENDS commenters expressed general support for these changes, and no party expressed opposition. Therefore, the Postal Service adopts the proposed changes in this final rule. State and local attorneys general, a public-health organization, and a law student proposed enumerating additional bases for identifying parties whose association with a package may give rise to reasonable cause: Identification of a party in scientific journal articles about ENDS products; Involvement of an ENDS manufacturer or distributor in litigation; Public statements on social media; Other media sources; The presence of markings on a package pursuant to section 2A(b)(1) of the Jenkins Act; Lists of entities licensed by a State or local government to engage in tobacco or ENDS industry activities; The use of a Post Office Box or CMRA; and A mailer’s past practice of sending or receiving items made nonmailable under the PACT Act. The Postal Service finds it unnecessary to incorporate these suggestions into the final rules. Statements in social media and other media are covered by 18 U.S.C. 1716E(a)(2)(A) and existing Publication 52 section 472.1(a). Information on a
mailpiece (e.g., Jenkins Act markings and address information) would be among the indicia taken into account under the new provision. So, too, would a mailer’s past practices, insofar as the new provision accounts for information about a mailing “in combination with other packages.” Because the list of “reasonable cause” indicia in Publication 52 section 472.1 is merely illustrative, the other proposed information sources remain potentially available, even if they are not expressly enumerated. To the extent that any relevant information not only exists at large, but is brought to the actual attention of Postal Service personnel authorized to determine how to interpret and act upon that information, then that awareness may reasonably justify the Postal Service’s treatment of associated mailings as nonmailable, absent contrary information sufficient to dispel reasonable cause. One law-student commenter expressed concern that the Noncompliant List may be unreliable, given the purported ease with which listed actors could rebrand or establish a new address. The Postal Service is not responsible for maintaining the Noncompliant List. However, it should be noted that section 2A(e)(1)(C) of the Jenkins Act directs the Attorney General to update and distribute the Noncompliant List at least once every four months, and related provisions require the Attorney General to include entities identified by State, local, and Tribal governments and to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the list. Moreover, no provision bars other parties from identifying inaccuracies or suggesting updates to the Attorney General. State and local attorneys general requested a point of contact for nonPostal-Service law-enforcement actors, the industry, and the general public to report suspicious mailing behavior. The Postal Inspection Service (United States Postal Inspection Service) is the law-enforcement component of the Postal Service,
and suspicious mailing behavior may be reported through the Postal Inspection Service hotline (1-877-876-2455). Mailing addresses for local Postal Inspection Service division offices can be found at https://postalpro.usps.com/pprotools/inspection-service. One law-student commenter encouraged the Postal Service to ensure that relevant personnel are trained and given up-to-date information about the Noncompliant List and market research on ENDS mailers. The Postal Service has internal processes to communicate such information to relevant personnel, and it will take this comment under advisement in administering those internal communications. Another law-student commenter proposed that a suspected ENDS mailer be required to furnish a sworn certification of mailability, punishable by a fine. The Postal Service finds such a measure to be unnecessary. Under the reasonable cause standard, mailability is based on indicia of suspicion—a collection of facts indicating for and against mailability—weighed in the administrative and law-enforcement discretion of Postal Service personnel. It is difficult to conceive of why facts tending in one direction should require the submission of paperwork when other facts would not. Moreover, the making of materially false statements or representations to the Postal Service is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001, regardless of whether the person has made a sworn declaration or received specific notice of potential punishment. As such, the Postal Service does not perceive any practical benefit that would arise from this suggestion.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-22787.pdf
A Lot to Read, I Know. But a Demonstration as to what will be Brought before the Courts when some say "Reasonable Cause" was Abused. And or when others say it was Not Applied.
BTW - I also think that Many Retailers are going to Continue to Ship Hardware for another Month or so. Or until they are Sold Out. Then they will Close their Doors.
If the Company is going to go Bust anyway, what is Really the Difference.
They have a lot to lose. Someone hostile to vaping could easily put in orders looking for anyone willing to bend the rules and report them.
"A large number of ENDS consumers, ENDS shippers, and some law students (collectively, “pro-ENDS commenters”) urged the Postal Service not to subject ENDS products to the PACT Act. As rationales, these commenters invoked the purported public benefits associated with ENDS products; the impact of a mailing ban on businesses and the Postal Service; the possibility of unanticipated and even perverse economic, distributive, and public-health effects of a mailing ban; doubts about the role that the mails may play in youth access to ENDS products (perceived to be the policy motivation for the mailing ban)"
Perceived? What other horse have you been riding, lol. This is straight comical.
Perceived? What other horse have you been riding, lol. This is straight comical.
I know Armageddon mods is closing shop, but they announced prior to this announcement...
We have lost too many shops and companies, this will close more...
Yeah... I've read about Too Many to count who are Now Gone. And the Wave of Closing hasn't even Hit the Beach Yet.
It also Break My Hearts when I see Newbie Posts about how Excited someone is are to be Quitting Smoking because of an e-Cigarette. Knowing that the Vast Majority of them have No Clue as what is going on.
And that their Chances of Success will take a Huge Gut Punch tomorrow.
Yeah... I've read about Too Many to count who are Now Gone. And the Wave of Closing hasn't even Hit the Beach Yet.
It also Break My Hearts when I see Newbie Posts about how Excited someone is are to be Quitting Smoking because of an e-Cigarette. Knowing that the Vast Majority of them have No Clue as what is going on.
And that their Chances of Success will take a Huge Gut Punch tomorrow.
I know... There's someone now just switched but needs less nicotine, I don't even know where to tell him to go with all this crap ..
A dark part of me wants to see some sort of verifiable evidence post ruling that undeniably shows that they f*kced up by doing this so we can spit it back in their faces. Something like a rise in teen smoking, but much more solid evidence. "Well lookit here, teen smoking went down drastically when vaping became popularized, and then it went back up after you smothered out the industry. No one could have seen that one coming - ya dummies." Unfortunately, this proof would come at the expense of humans in some form or another.
I know people who have received shipping via X - a little slower and somewhat inaccurate tracking but they did get their order and the driver made sure they signed for it as required.
So at this point - Is there really that big a problem as far as shipping goes ???
So at this point - Is there really that big a problem as far as shipping goes ???
For Every 1 Person who is inside a Xdelivery area, there is probably 5 who Aren't. That, and I believe Xdelivery has a 500 Items per
So Yeah... There might be a Problem.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
