Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law PACT Act - Bill To Ban Vapes Shipping Through USPS

I'm getting emails from ecig companies saying they're open still and plan to stay in certain states of course. Id imagine vapes will be fine , the end use is going to get fucked in shipping tgough. That could be the reason herb vapes would struggle more, how often you walk into mom and pops and find a dynavap or sticky brick.
 
I'm getting emails from ecig companies saying they're open still and plan to stay in certain states of course. Id imagine vapes will be fine , the end use is going to get fucked in shipping tgough. That could be the reason herb vapes would struggle more, how often you walk into mom and pops and find a dynavap or sticky brick.
there no dry herb vaporizers avaialbe in any of those shops save for maybe a pax vape ...
 
there no dry herb vaporizers avaialbe in any of those shops save for maybe a pax vape ...
or if you're actually lucky, then it's always (marked-up/overpriced) YouCant products...

I went into a "vape shop" for ecig stuff in NH on my way back from Maine, recently, for a buddy... it was mostly packed with ecig/salts crap but they also had tons of headshop crap too. Yocan stuff as expected & Pax, but they also had S&B, Firefly, Dr Dabber Switch, Peak and even a Rio...I was pretty pleasantly surprised! I did, however, overhear him fit a customer for a Yocan "dry herb" vape... forget which model but I can guarantee you it wont fully convert... shoulda pushed a Crafty, dummy. Not one decent grinder in the joint.... best was "Sharpstone"... UGH!

Edit: and thay had Davinci, too, but the older one without "satan's anus", or whatever they call it... never used it.
 
Last edited:

USPS Wants Hemp And CBD Vape Companies To Prepare For Upcoming Mailing Restrictions


The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) wants to help businesses that mail hemp and CBD vaporizers prepare for a forthcoming rule change that could impact the mailability of their products.

In a notice published in the Federal Register on Monday, the agency discussed how congressional legislation passed last year will generally restrict the ability of companies to utilize its services to mail vapes. But depending on the outcome of rulemaking, there may be exemptions for certain types of devices.

USPS said it’s still in the process of finalizing its rule and deciding whether to extend an exception to certain vaping products including those that contain legal hemp-derived CBD. However, because the mailing restriction will take effect immediately after the regulations are finalized, the agency is providing guidance ahead of time on how to prepare to submit an application for an exemption if it in fact chooses to offer one.

The Postal Service also reiterated in the new notice that mailing marijuana products remains prohibited because, unlike hemp and its derivatives, it is still a federally controlled substance subject to its own statutory restrictions.

While the Federal Register filing doesn’t touch on any regulations for vaporizer devices that are intended for marijuana use but don’t actually contain any controlled substances, industry stakeholders have expressed concerns about language of the congressional law that extends the mailing ban to “any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device” (with italicized emphasis added).

By preventing vape manufacturers and retailers from utilizing USPS to ship their goods, the bill will effectively force them to use more expensive private courier services.

When it comes potential exemptions for hemp and CBD products, the traditional application process involves submitting documentation showing that a given mailer is legally operating. USPS also said that a separate spreadsheet should be prepared that shows whether the products a company is shipping contain CBD or THC.

For products with THC, the quantity and concentration should be noted. And for CBD products containing no more than 0.3 percent THC, the business should state “whether the CBD derives from hemp.”

“For hemp-based products containing CBD with a THC concentration not exceeding 0.3 percent, mailers must retain, and prepare to make available upon request, records establishing compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to hemp production, processing, distribution, and sales, including the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018,” USPS said. “Such records may include laboratory test results, licenses, and compliance reports.”

“All other substances that contain THC are Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of federal law…and are therefore nonmailable in most instances,” it continues. “This federal mailing prohibition is unaffected by whether the mailing of THC-containing substances violates state or local law and by the restriction of Department of Justice appropriations relating to medical marijuana.”

That last line is in reference to an appropriations amendment that has been annually renewed to prevent the Department of Justice from using its funds to interfere in state-legal medical cannabis programs. But its restrictions only apply to the Justice Department and do not impact Postal Service operations in any way.

Also in the new notice, USPS stipulated that it “is unlawful to mail advertisements for, or to advertise the mailing of, federally controlled substances or drug paraphernalia”—a policy that the agency has used in the past to justify refusing to mail newspapers that contain advertisements for state-legal cannabis businesses.
 

USPS Wants Hemp And CBD Vape Companies To Prepare For Upcoming Mailing Restrictions


The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) wants to help businesses that mail hemp and CBD vaporizers prepare for a forthcoming rule change that could impact the mailability of their products.

In a notice published in the Federal Register on Monday, the agency discussed how congressional legislation passed last year will generally restrict the ability of companies to utilize its services to mail vapes. But depending on the outcome of rulemaking, there may be exemptions for certain types of devices.

USPS said it’s still in the process of finalizing its rule and deciding whether to extend an exception to certain vaping products including those that contain legal hemp-derived CBD. However, because the mailing restriction will take effect immediately after the regulations are finalized, the agency is providing guidance ahead of time on how to prepare to submit an application for an exemption if it in fact chooses to offer one.

The Postal Service also reiterated in the new notice that mailing marijuana products remains prohibited because, unlike hemp and its derivatives, it is still a federally controlled substance subject to its own statutory restrictions.

While the Federal Register filing doesn’t touch on any regulations for vaporizer devices that are intended for marijuana use but don’t actually contain any controlled substances, industry stakeholders have expressed concerns about language of the congressional law that extends the mailing ban to “any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device” (with italicized emphasis added).

By preventing vape manufacturers and retailers from utilizing USPS to ship their goods, the bill will effectively force them to use more expensive private courier services.

When it comes potential exemptions for hemp and CBD products, the traditional application process involves submitting documentation showing that a given mailer is legally operating. USPS also said that a separate spreadsheet should be prepared that shows whether the products a company is shipping contain CBD or THC.

For products with THC, the quantity and concentration should be noted. And for CBD products containing no more than 0.3 percent THC, the business should state “whether the CBD derives from hemp.”

“For hemp-based products containing CBD with a THC concentration not exceeding 0.3 percent, mailers must retain, and prepare to make available upon request, records establishing compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to hemp production, processing, distribution, and sales, including the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018,” USPS said. “Such records may include laboratory test results, licenses, and compliance reports.”

“All other substances that contain THC are Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of federal law…and are therefore nonmailable in most instances,” it continues. “This federal mailing prohibition is unaffected by whether the mailing of THC-containing substances violates state or local law and by the restriction of Department of Justice appropriations relating to medical marijuana.”

That last line is in reference to an appropriations amendment that has been annually renewed to prevent the Department of Justice from using its funds to interfere in state-legal medical cannabis programs. But its restrictions only apply to the Justice Department and do not impact Postal Service operations in any way.

Also in the new notice, USPS stipulated that it “is unlawful to mail advertisements for, or to advertise the mailing of, federally controlled substances or drug paraphernalia”—a policy that the agency has used in the past to justify refusing to mail newspapers that contain advertisements for state-legal cannabis businesses.
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and her friends absolutely stuck it to us unwashed heathens with this bill.
 
:rant:When I was looking up who sponsored and cosponsored the bill it was exactly bipartisan with 14 dem 14 repubs. Both sides sold out, or got played by lobbyists for corporate interests. [source]
Left cheek right cheek.......fucks us.
I stand by my original statement.
Has her name on it a d I fully despise the Republican party I am old enough to remember them to.
The list of top donors to both sides makes it glaringly obvious.
Only works when they play us against each other and it is working very well right now.
 
I read a few articles about caps on nicotine levels in tobacco products. There was some type of report that said it would encourage people to use tobacco alternatives to assist with quitting cigarettes. One of the alternatives listed was e-cigarettes. That made me laugh. I'm going to try to find the report - my guess is that it's not from some regulatory agency or from another government source but probably from an analyst.
 
I received this today from cannabis giant Greenlane. Talk about vertical integration ! They now provide shipping solutions to third party cannabis companies

GREENLANE PACT ACT SOLUTION

Dear Greenlane Customer,
As you may have already heard, Congress recently amended the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), placing restrictions upon the shipment of certain vaporizers referred to as Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, or ENDS. The vaporizers subject to these restrictions include some non-nicotine vaporizers, batteries, parts, and accessories. When the statute takes full effect in the near future, the US Postal Service will no longer deliver packages containing ENDS products. In response to these developments, FedEx, UPS, and DHL adopted or amended their policies to prohibit shipment of ENDS. We’re excited to share with you that Greenlane has launched an ENDS shipping solution for parcel shipping!
Greenlane’s ENDS shipping solution will cover more than 85% of the US and will deliver within 4–6 business days; we will continue to work with our partners to expand coverage and improve shipping times. ENDS orders will require an Adult Signature and are not eligible for any special services including express, overnight, 2nd day, COD, and pickup.
Although the increased regulatory burdens and prohibitions on using traditional carriers may lead to an increase in shipping costs for ENDS, Greenlane has created a sliding-scale freight cost recovery program that’s curated for your business needs to ensure we offer the lowest shipping rates possible. Freight/LTL orders will continue to ship as usual.
We’re thrilled to provide a solution that will continue to give customers access to the products they need in an economical, efficient, and compliant manner.
Thank you again for your loyalty and support!
 

PACT Act Update: USPS Delays Ban on Mailing Vape Products​

April 30, 2021By Emily Burns
Federal Law & Policy, Marijuana, CBD, Vape
USPS truck high res

In a move that should encourage the cannabis industry, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is delaying the implementation of its new rules for the enforcement of a ban on direct-to-consumer mailing of vaping products. As we reported earlier this year, recent amendments to the PACT Act (Preventing All Cigarette Trafficking) required the USPS to issue regulations putting into effect the new ban on USPS mailing vape products from retailers to consumers.
I remain optimistic about mailability, despite the grim outlook lately with this news. One reason is that the principles of statutory interpretation lend credibility to the argument that the ban does notapply to vaping products that are not used to deliver tobacco or nicotine. While the USPS could have banned vaping products altogether as part of the new rule, it now seems that they are taking time to revisit the implications of an all-encompassing prohibition on shipments of vaping products. The USPS must not exceed its own legal authority under the PACT Act by regulating vaping products that fall outside the definition of tobacco product, as such a rule could be subject to challenge by various industry groups.
If you’ve been following our PACT Act updates, by now you might recall that he amended PACT Act now defines Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) as “any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device; includes—an e-cigarette; e-hookah; e-cigar; vape pen; advanced refillable personal vaporizer; electronic pipe; and any component, liquid, part, or accessory of a device described without regard to whether the component, liquid, part, or accessory is sold separately from the device.”
While many fear that this would automatically encompass vaporizer components that are used in connection with marijuana and hemp products, I am not convinced that this is the case and the USPS decision to postpone the rule-making process provides greater support for such a position.

THE TOBACCO CONTROL ACT​

The Tobacco Control Act (TCA) supersedes the PACT Act if there is a conflict between the two bills, due to a provision in the PACT Act that states the law does not alter or affect the provisions of the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), which includes the TCA. The TCA does not explicitly define ENDS but it does define Tobacco Products as follows:
[A]ny product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product). (21 USC 321 (rr)(1).)
The TCA granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) broad authority to determine what products were considered “tobacco products” because, in addition to granting FDA regulatory oversight over cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco and other traditional products, the TCA also empowered the FDA to regulate any other tobacco products it deemed to be subject to the TCA. In May 2016, the FDA issued the “Deeming Rule” to establish what novel products would be subject to TCA.
The FDA has specifically explained what they consider to be ENDS under the TCA’s definition of “Tobacco Products.” That FDA interpretation excludes CBD, THC, or other cannabis derivatives because the FDA lacks the jurisdiction to regulate such products under the TCA. The FDA specifically defines ENDS in enforcement guidance:
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (or ENDS) include devices, components, and/or parts that deliver aerosolized e-liquid when inhaled. For example, FDA considers vapes or vape pens, personal vaporizers, e-cigarettes, cigalikes, e-pens, e-hookahs, e-cigars, and e-pipes to be ENDS.
The FDA further states that e-liquids generally refer to “liquid containing nicotine and nicotine-containing e-liquids (liquids combined with flavorings, colorings, and other ingredients).” If a vaporizer product, component, or accessory: (1) does not deliver aerosolized e-liquid when inhaled, (2) does not contain nicotine or other material made or derived from tobacco; (3) is not intended or reasonably expected to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product; and (4) is not derived or made from tobacco and intended for human consumption, then the FDA does not consider this to be included in the definition of an ENDS product or tobacco product altogether. Unlike the amended PACT Act, ENDS - for the purpose of the TCA and Deeming Rule - is not defined to include vapor devices and accessories used with “other substances” that do not contain nicotine or tobacco.

READING THE FINE PRINT​

The inclusion of the term “other substances” in the PACT Act definition of ENDS was likely intended by its drafters to capture formulations of e-liquids containing tobacco or nicotine that sophisticated lawyers for the tobacco industry would argue are outside of the FDA’s framework under the TCA. The vapor market is very popular among young people and the whole premise of the PACT Act is preventing underage tobacco sales and the avoidance of tobacco taxes. The PACT Act definition of ENDS goes beyond the TCA’s definition of ENDS, and it seems lawmakers wanted to target the e-cigarette industry. But lawmakers failed to read the fine print, as the ENDS definition that they came up with is totally inconsistent with the FDA’s Deeming Rule.
The cannabis vaporizer community could make the argument that the ENDS definition included in the PACT Act does not cover products reasonably expected to be used with cannabis or its derivatives including THC, CBD, and hemp-derived products. Those products are not reasonably expected to be used for human consumption of a Tobacco Product.
The amended PACT Act explicitly does not alter the FDCA which includes the TCA, indicating that the addition of “any other substance” to the definition of ENDS probably was not meant to capture non-nicotine and non-tobacco products such as cannabis.

BOTTOM LINE​

If lawmakers intended to truly change the way the federal government defines ENDS to include non-tobacco and non-nicotine products, it is rational to assume that Congress would have also amended the TCA to allow the FDA to regulate these other substances. The strategy moving forward should be to encourage USPS to specifically focus on the ENDS market because of the relation to nicotine and tobacco, as this is what is statutorily required and authorized by the PACT Act and anything done in relation to cannabis or hemp should be seriously challenged by the industry.

You can contact Emily Burns at info@gl-lg.com or 503-488-5424.
 
Subject near and dear to our hearts.

"lawmakers created the law to keep nicotine products from minors. But they wrote the legislation so broadly that other industries with vape products, including cannabis and CBD, have been negatively impacted."

And that is because our so-called political leaders do shitty, half-ass work that would get them fired from any sane business. They are the ultimate kings and queens of unintended consequences totally due to their lack of understanding, attention to detail, and willingness to kick it all down the road to faceless bureaucracies who enact restrictions on our freedom and behavior via rule/regulation making.

Yes, I do hold all politicians in contempt....and IMO they deserve it.

A Law That's Supposed to Protect Minors from Vapes Is Hurting the Cannabis Business


In 2021, new federal legislation affects all sellers with vape-related products that ship directly to the consumer. Initially, lawmakers created the law to keep nicotine products from minors. But they wrote the legislation so broadly that other industries with vape products, including cannabis and CBD, have been negatively impacted.

What is the PACT Act?

An acronym for "Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking," the PACT Act has roots as far back as 1949. Originally called the Jenkins Act, the federal law states that any person who sells and ships cigarettes across state borders must report the sale to the buyer's state tobacco tax administrator.

Fast forward to 2009 when lawmakers amended the act to match new technology, broadening the language to include online sales. Digital sellers were now required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) and the state they operated in and sold to. The 2009 amendment also prohibited the mail delivery of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco within the US.

The main intention for these amendments was two-fold:
  • It prevented minors from buying. The ultimate goal was to limit the pathways that tobacco and related products can get to minors. There was a greater emphasis on online retail because it was harder to track the age of consumers.
  • By linking taxes and registration with state authorities, the regulators had more control. State and federal officials could more easily audit companies and therefore track the age of consumers more closely.

New legislation in 2021

In December 2020, as part of a larger stimulus bill, the PACT Act was again amended. The new legislation went into effect on April 26, 2021, and the industry can already feel its effects.

The 2021 PACT Act includes two new rules:
  • All electronic nicotine delivery systems ("ENDS") and substances that can be used with ENDS are held to the same rules as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. All regulations that apply to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products now also apply to all ENDS, which is defined very broadly as "any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device." The breadth of this language puts manufacturers of vape pens for use with liquid cannabis, CBD, or other non-nicotine liquids in the untenable position of having to try to comply with a statute intended to regulate tobacco products.
  • The US Postal Service is restricted from mailing any cigarettes, ENDS, or vape products anywhere in the US.
On April 19, one week before USPS implements the new regulations, USPS stated that they would postpone the deadline until they could clarify the guidelines. Regardless of the final ruling, most shippers of vapes for use with liquids anticipate that they will need to find alternatives to get their products to their customers.

What this means for sellers

The Attorney General has delegated the ATF to administer and enforce the PACT Act. If companies don't meet the guidelines, they face steep fines, criminal or civil charges, and even prison sentences. Sellers who fall under this new bill should take it very seriously.

Under the new PACT Act, all sellers must:
  • Verify customers' ages.
  • Use shipping services other than USPS.
  • Verify an adult accepts each delivery by obtaining an adult signature.
  • Register with the ATF and the US Attorney General.
  • Register with tax authorities in the state where they produce and sell.
  • File monthly reports with state regulators of all shipments of ENDS made.
  • Apply labeling to outside packaging that says, "CIGARETTES/NICOTINE: FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF ALL APPLICABLE EXCISE TAXES, AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LICENSING AND TAX-STAMPING OBLIGATIONS."

Who the PACT Act affects

This new legislation affects countless companies, both large and small. Since the law went into effect in March and lacks guidelines from the USPS regarding how to apply the law to non-nicotine products, many companies are still scrambling to make sense of this and correctly shift their strategies.

The entire vaping industry

The new legislation includes a much broader definition of products than the previous amendments. They aren't just for cigarettes anymore. Now sellers may be affected if they produce or sell vapes that use liquid- or oil-based substances (not just nicotine) plus the substances themselves.

Companies working with USPS
USPS is hands-down the best carrier option for small businesses. It is consistently and reliably the cheapest way to move parcels around the US. Any vape companies not selling nicotine-based products will likely be stifled if USPS regulations prohibit the shipment of these products.
To make matters worse, all the large shipping companies, including FedEx, UPS, and DHL, have changed their policies to align with recent PACT Act amendments and no longer allow vape companies to use their service. This leaves small businesses with limited experience in a tight place to find new shipping partners quickly. If their customers are required to pay extra fees or wait longer for shipments, they may move on to other more prominent brands, leaving the small startups to fizzle out.
Companies working with major carriers

So companies anticipate USPS won't allow shipment of liquid vaporizer products once final regulations come out. What's the biggie? Well, when USPS faces a significant change like this, there's bound to be a big ripple effect. Now larger private and public carriers are in an awkward position. They can choose to continue delivering vape products, but they may be audited more often by regulators and will likely pay hefty fees to do so. The public carriers, including FedEx, UPS, and DHL, have temporarily stated that they will incorporate similar vape bans until the PACT Act is clearly defined. However, several regional carriers, who have experience shipping heavily regulated products like tobacco and alcohol, continue to ship vape products.
Smokes that aren't tobacco

If you sell tobacco or any tobacco-related product, it's no surprise that a bill like this would pass to regulate your products further. But if you're a marijuana or CBD company, you might be feeling like you're getting mixed messages in the last couple of years. With more legalization and acceptance of both CBD and MJ products across the US, it appeared things were opening up. With the PACT Act adjustments, if you sell anything that can be used to aerosolize a liquid solution, you need to pull back and reassess your shipping strategy.

The future

The next few months look very uncertain. For now, sellers are taking a few clear actions. They are following the guidelines to comply with new tax and labeling rules. Some sellers have halted shipping until they can reassess their strategy (although only those with enough cash reserves to do so).

Many sellers who were shipping with USPS are now taking their shipments and finding new solutions. Many private carrier companies who have shipped tobacco products for decades are happy to collect the extra business from vape product companies. But not all carriers who can do this have a national presence, and most are far more expensive than the larger national carriers. Some sellers are tapping specialized third-party logistics companies, often referred to as 3PLs. They understand the regulations and have stitched together a regional carrier network to ensure they have national shipping coverage.

In addition, sellers lean more heavily on their retailers and distributors to ensure their products are still accessible to buyers in their local markets. While selling directly to their customers is more profitable, retail partners can provide a steady source of revenue while sellers look for cost-effective ways to sell their products online.
 
P.A.C.T. is Growing Teeth?

Moderators, wasn't sure where to post this but thought it EXTREMELY important the I made all of my "partners in crime" aware of this DHL shipping issue!

__________________________________________

The, Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) is beginning to take hold, me thinks!

I recently received this email from DHL (below) after attempting to purchase the XMAX V3 Pro, from VapeMeet, a Canadian vape retailer with about 8 brick and mortar stores around, The Greater Toronto Area.

________________________________________


"Hello __________

I hope you’re having a great day.

Regretfully your shipment has been returned to the origin because effective March 26, 2021 DHL Express Inc no longer imports, exports or delivers any device that an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor or any other substance to the user inhaling from the deice including e-cigarettes, vape pens etc.

Please reach out to your vendor for next steps. You may also monitor the shipment at our website, Logistics.DHL.COM for return airway bill information.

I apologize for the inconvenience I will be closing your file in the imports department, if you have further questions please call the Imports Department at 866-600-0014. Please visit www.logistics.dhl for tracking options.

Thank you for using DHL Express

Customer Care Advisor, Imports
Imports Department Hours M-F 5:00 AM - 5:00 PM MST (AZ local time)

DHL Express
1910 West Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, AZ 85281
USA"
________________________________________

So be careful when ordering even a dry vape internationally due to DHL's voluntary and misapplied compliance with the U.S.A.'s
P.A.C.T.!

I finally was able to leave a voice mail on the office phone of VapeMeet's CEO so maybe this situation will yet become resolved to my liking? Time will tell.

Any and all suggestions are welcome!

.
 

USPS Releases Final Rule Banning Mailing Of Hemp, CBD And Marijuana Vapes


The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) on Wednesday released its final rule on the mailability of vapes, asserting that even devices designed for federally legal hemp derivatives like CBD generally cannot be shipped through the U.S. mail.

The agency has been developing the regulations to comply with a bill passed by Congress last year that is mostly aimed at stopping nicotine vaping devices from being mailed—though it has broader implications. Despite significant public comment on an earlier proposed version of the rules that urged USPS not to interpret the law in a way that restricts hemp businesses, the agency ultimately said that cannabis vapes fit the definition of what lawmakers moved to ban.

There are some exceptions, but stakeholders are disappointed by the final rule.

During public comment, some argued that the bill was specifically meant to restrict mailing of nicotine-based vapes. But while the legislation refers to limitations on “electronic nicotine delivery systems,” or ENDS, it defines that term as “any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device.” (Italicized emphasis added.)

USPS explained in the rule, which is set to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, that by the letter of the law, that includes hemp and marijuana vapes.

“It goes without saying that marijuana, hemp, and their derivatives are substances,” the agency said. “Hence, to the extent that they may be delivered to an inhaling user through an aerosolized solution, they and the related delivery systems, parts, components, liquids, and accessories clearly fall within the [Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act’s] scope.”

Other commenters argued that USPS shouldn’t impose the restriction on cannabis products because the ban could conflict with state or local marijuana laws—or because Congress has approved spending legislation that prohibits the use of Justice Department funds for interfering in state-legal medical cannabis programs.

USPS said those arguments are not valid because, 1) it’s part of the federal government and is, therefore, unaffected by state or local marijuana policies and 2) it’s not part of the Justice Department, which is the only branch of the government restricted by the state protection rider in appropriations legislation.

The agency further clarified that hemp containing up to 0.3 percent THC is federally legal and is generally mailable, but only “to the extent that they are not incorporated into an ENDS product or function as a component of one.” As such, while business can generally mail out legal hemp-derived products, that’s only the case if they are not vaping products covered under the new law.

“The POSECCA and the Agriculture Improvement Act overlap, but they do not conflict. The Agriculture Improvement Act merely excludes certain products from the CSA. It does not affirmatively declare hemp and hemp derivatives to be mailable in any and all circumstances, superseding all other relevant laws (such as the POSECCA). For its part, the POSECCA restricts the mailability of only certain hemp-based and related products; hemp-based non-ENDS products are unaffected, as are ENDS products falling within one of the PACT Act’s exceptions. That Congress has rendered some subset of a class of goods to be nonmailable while leaving the remainder mailable is not some sort of legal conflict, but, rather, how mailability regulation typically works.”

There are limited exceptions to the new mailing rule. Vapes can be shipped within the states of Alaska and Hawaii; verified businesses can mail vapes between each other or to government agencies; companies can send products for consumer testing or public health purposes; and individuals can ship up to 10 ENDS for non-commercial use per 30-day period. Beyond that, it is generally prohibited for a company to send a vaping device to a consumer via U.S. mail.

Some commenters argued that CBD products could fall under the health exemption to the general ban, but USPS said that would not apply unless and until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves any such products.

“The FDA likewise has not approved any ENDS product for therapeutic delivery of any non-nicotine substance, including, in particular, CBD or other substances derived from marijuana. Once again, except for hemp-derived CBD containing no more than 0.3 percent THC by dry weight, cannabis and cannabis derivatives remain nonmailable under the Controlled Substances Act regardless of the POSECCA and notwithstanding any State or local laws on ‘medical’ marijuana… Far from taking marketing claims of therapeutic benefit at face value, the FDA has undertaken enforcement action against companies making such claims about CBD and other cannabis-related products absent new drug approvals from the FDA.”

Vaping advocates say the final USPS rules confirm concerns they have long voiced as Congress considered enacting the ban.

“USPS never asked Congress to hand them a new unfunded mandate. The reality is Congress set the overly expansive language and USPS was and is statutorily obliged to apply the law as they wrote it,” Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, told Marijuana Moment. “Since we anticipate it will take the USPS months or years to move businesses through the application process to allow B2B sales, further supply chain issues among independents will likely follow.”

“Of course, there remains an open question around how vigorously the law will be enforced, particularly around products that lack state or federal excise taxes,” he said. “Punishments for violating the law can be swift and severe, so retailers should think carefully about trading a short-term buck for potential legal troubles before a federal judge.”

By preventing vape manufacturers and retailers from utilizing USPS to ship their goods, the regulations will effectively force them to use more expensive private courier services—a cost that will likely be passed on to consumers.
 
Wow. I have a box of vape parts that’s currently in the mail and scheduled to arrive Friday. It contains a glass piece, a atomizer, and a connector. I hope they make it.

It's actually shipped via UPS so I should be good. I think.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) on Wednesday released its final rule on the mailability of vapes, asserting that even devices designed for federally legal hemp derivatives like CBD generally cannot be shipped through the U.S. mail.
Well, what about vaping say....lavender? Yeah, they don't care if there are other impacts.

The agency has been developing the regulations to comply with a bill passed by Congress last year that is mostly aimed at stopping nicotine vaping devices from being mailed—though it has broader implications. Despite significant public comment on an earlier proposed version of the rules that urged USPS not to interpret the law in a way that restricts hemp businesses, the agency ultimately said that cannabis vapes fit the definition of what lawmakers moved to ban.
And this is exactly the kind of knee jerk, no thought, utter unintended consequences bullshit that makes me oppose government expansion of power at every turn.

Government are the kings of half ass laws and regulations and when they discover all of the unintended consequences of their half ass jobs they are shocked...just shocked.

Fucking assholes.
 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top