The most important vaporization discussion we need to have. (Your Vape Mail)

vapeape77

Well-Known Member
Okay, so you take the cannabis and turn it into an aerosol and it becomes a problem for them!

Take the cannabis itself and don't turn it into an aerosol and it's fine, they don't say anything about that - and no matter what other might say, vaping flower does not turn it into an aerosol... an aerosol is a suspension, vaping flower produces vapour and vapour is not a suspension!

Either their language is off and they are trying to ban dry herb vapes, or they are not bothered about dry herb vapes, just the aerosolised vapes which are completely different things!




Bollocks! Seriously this is just flat out wrong, an aerosol is a suspension!

The vaporised elements of the flower are a vapour - that's why they are called vaporisers and not aerosolisers = there are differences between an aerosol and vapour as I linked to previously. The use of the word vape for a liquid based aerosol is a misnomer.
When I read that article just now, made me think they won’t be shipping us flower vapes regardless….

I chilled a bit since it just means that smaller shippers now have more opportunities, yes the vape will cost more…
 
Last edited:

kel

Friends & Family
When I read that article just now, made me think they won’t be shipping us flower vapes regardless….

I can see that happening, but if so they really need someone who knows what they are talking about to change the language of the law. I can also see the law being misinterpreted by those who are asked to implement it.

I sincerely hope that it is just the aerosol solution 'vapes' and not the dry herb vaporisers ... I see the sense in the law form this perspective, but not from the dry herb vapes, that makes no sense, what that would be saying is that for states where cannabis is legal, it's okay if you smoke it, but not if you vaporise it! That's nuts!

Glad you chilled out a bit... Honestly, I think you are going to be absolutely fine!! 😃
 

vapeape77

Well-Known Member
I can see that happening, but if so they really need someone who knows what they are talking about to change the language of the law. I can also see the law being misinterpreted by those who are asked to implement it.

I sincerely hope that it is just the aerosol solution 'vapes' and not the dry herb vaporisers ... I see the sense in the law form this perspective, but not from the dry herb vapes, that makes no sense, what that would be saying is that for states where cannabis is legal, it's okay if you smoke it, but not if you vaporise it! That's nuts!

Glad you chilled out a bit... Honestly, I think you are going to be absolutely fine!! 😃
Lol y’all get me all worked up….

peace
 

cybrguy

Wear A Fucking Mask!
I get that you are trying to hang your hat on the difference between aerosol and suspension (in air), but the words are practically interchangeable, at least in American English. The purpose of a flower vape is to aerosolize (evaporate) the active ingredients in the plant so that they can be consumed without combustion. The actives become suspended in air by the process of adding heat which is what the vape does.
I would love to believe that dry herb vapes will be exempt, but I seriously doubt they will. They should be for all the practical reasons, including accomplishing what the law was designed to accomplish (save the kids), but the law is poorly written and will be too generally applied by people who hate the industry. And I seriously doubt the dry herb vaping industry has the will or power to get the law changed. The opportunity for that was before it went into effect.
 

sirwalter

Well-Known Member

"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.”"

Its official. Curious to see how this unfolds..
 

kel

Friends & Family
No, I am not trying to hang my hat on anything, there is a very clear and unambiguous difference, in whatever english you speak, unless that's nonsense english - in which case - okay!

Otherwise, they really are not interchangeable terms, here's the link again, please read, and then scroll down and read the rest

Also, don't forget that it's not just aerosol - it's ENDS 'aerosol solution' - context is everything - but by all means go ahead and convince yourself that vapour from vaped flower is an ENDS solution... and air is a fluid, whatever... I give up!


then read this


then read this


Pretttttyyyyyy pleeaasassseeeee????

happy eyes GIF by Cartoon Hangover


As discussed above I agree that the implementation of it may be flawed and it could have an effect, but that doesn't change what we know to be easily verifiable facts of language and meaning.
 
Last edited:

kel

Friends & Family
I get your point. It just isn't going to matter one bit to USPS or the companies who's products are confiscated before they reach their customers or the customers who won't get what they ordered.

Yes, of course... hopefully the businesses manufacturing and sending this stuff out will change the terminology so everything is okay - which is what I expect to happen. I seriously doubt anyone is going to send a package out with 'vape' written on the front of it - not really 😃

Edit: Stepped away and came back and yes... technically you are right that the vaporised particles do form an aerosol in the air, but that's not what the law or this discussion is about, it's about devices that use an 'aerosol solution' = or at least that's what I thought it was about.

I can see it being a difference in language but ... Seriously, do you guys over the water use 'aerosol' as a day to day term to describe the vapour you make with your vapes? Never in my life... although I might adopt it now, just for the fun of it!!

Hey guys... I aerosolised some great bud last night... I just got a new aerosoliser, etc... 😂

Or on an early morning walk... ooh look at that aerosol hanging there in the sky just above the ground!!
 
Last edited:

vapeape77

Well-Known Member
Yes, of course... hopefully the businesses manufacturing and sending this stuff out will change the terminology so everything is okay - which is what I expect to happen. I seriously doubt anyone is going to send a package out with 'vape' written on the front of it - not really 😃

Edit: Stepped away and came back and yes... technically you are right that the vaporised particles do form an aerosol in the air, but that's not what the law or this discussion is about, it's about devices that use an 'aerosol solution' = or at least that's what I thought it was about.

I can see it being a difference in language but ... Seriously, do you guys over the water use 'aerosol' as a day to day term to describe the vapour you make with your vapes? Never in my life... although I might adopt it now, just for the fun of it!!

Hey guys... I aerosolised some great bud last night... I just got a new aerosoliser, etc... 😂

Or on an early morning walk... ooh look at that aerosol hanging there in the sky just above the ground!!
Lol first of all we call it vapor!

But believe it or not yes I have one of these inhalers, and I say I’m gonna aerosol the shit out of this room🤣
 

flammy

Well-Known Member

"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.”"

Its official. Curious to see how this unfolds..

The devil is in the details...the PACT Act amendment does not affect dry herb vapes unless it is also capable of vaporizing a liquid solution. The article is a little confusing but from the rule itself (albeit not yet published or official):

"Provisionally, however, certain aspects of the definition are apparent from the plain statutory language, such as that a user must inhale from the device and that a covered ENDS product must be, or be capable of use with, a liquid solution."

"Raw or minimally processed organic matter, such as aromatic herb leaves, does not qualify as a “solution.” As such, if a device heats such matter to produce vapors for the user to inhale, that device does not operate “through an aerosolized solution” and thus falls outside the scope of the POSECCA definition. By the same token, its parts, components, and accessories (as well as the herbal matter used in the device) likewise fall outside of the POSECCA’s scope."

This said, the rule also points out that USPS was already prohibited in mailing certain items such as dry herb vapes:

"Second, the Postal Service reminded ENDS industry participants that, regardless of the impending applicability of PACT Act restrictions or exceptions, certain ENDS products are currently, and will remain, subject to other mailability prohibitions and restrictions (e.g., cannabis and other controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, lithium batteries, liquids, certain chemicals found in ENDS liquids, and certain advertisements and promotional materials)."

"As noted in the April 2021 Guidance, ENDS products that constitute controlled substances or drug paraphernalia are nonmailable regardless of whether the PACT Act would also preclude mailability."

Reference 2021-22787.pdf
 
Last edited:

Ramahs

Fucking Combustion (mostly) Since February 2017
This may effect businesses, but I doubt that it will effect person-to-person sales from places like the classifieds as some have alluded to.

Lest I remind you that there are lots of illegal drugs are shipped in illegal states all the time. In rare cases, some get found and confiscated, but most don't.
 

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
@kel Thanks for sharing that data, it does seem to state the distinctions between vapor and aerosol, and I hope you're right but I fear @cybrguy is likely spot-on about how it will play out.
I skimmed more than studied, how would vaping unadulterated distillate in cartridges, differ from flower?
 

flammy

Well-Known Member
No, I am not trying to hang my hat on anything, there is a very clear and unambiguous difference, in whatever english you speak, unless that's nonsense english - in which case - okay!

Otherwise, they really are not interchangeable terms, here's the link again, please read, and then scroll down and read the rest

Also, don't forget that it's not just aerosol - it's ENDS 'aerosol solution' - context is everything - but by all means go ahead and convince yourself that vapour from vaped flower is an ENDS solution... and air is a fluid, whatever... I give up!


then read this


then read this


Pretttttyyyyyy pleeaasassseeeee????

happy eyes GIF by Cartoon Hangover


As discussed above I agree that the implementation of it may be flawed and it could have an effect, but that doesn't change what we know to be easily verifiable facts of language and meaning.

This is the correct interpretation and semantics does matter when reading rulings or laws. According the USPS rule released yesterday (yet to be published or official):

"A solution is a mixture of chemical substances that is both homogenous (i.e., uniformly mixed) and stable (i.e., not prone to separating upon standing or filtration).

Raw or minimally processed organic matter, such as aromatic herb leaves, does not qualify as a “solution.” As such, if a device heats such matter to produce vapors for the user to inhale, that device does not operate “through an aerosolized solution” and thus falls outside the scope of the POSECCA definition. By the same token, its parts, components, and accessories (as well as the herbal matter used in the device) likewise fall outside of the POSECCA’s scope."

Source: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-22787.pdf
 
Last edited:

vapeape77

Well-Known Member
This is the correct interpretation and semantics does matter when reading rulings or laws. According the USPS rule (yet to be published or official) yesterday and what the poorly written article was referencing:

"A solution is a mixture of chemical substances that is both homogenous (i.e., uniformly mixed) and stable (i.e., not prone to separating upon standing or filtration).

Raw or minimally processed organic matter, such as aromatic herb leaves, does not qualify as a “solution.” As such, if a device heats such matter to produce vapors for the user to inhale, that device does not operate “through an aerosolized solution” and thus falls outside the scope of the POSECCA definition. By the same token, its parts, components, and accessories (as well as the herbal matter used in the device) likewise fall outside of the POSECCA’s scope."

Source: https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/...ave-your-vape-mail.50845/page-14#post-1602903
Guess there is two threads going on this, repost and question
It say flowers not included, but then says said shipments are already illegal… how the fuck is that true. I signed for my Crafty shipped from S&B 2 weeks ago, guess that was illegal shipment???

“USPS notes that products like dry herb vaporizers, intended to vape cannabis flower rather than “solutions” like e-liquid or oil, may not fit the POSECCA definition, but are already prohibited from the U.S. Mail under separate rules. They are considered drug paraphernalia intended to be used with federally controlled substances, and therefore “unmailable.”
 
vapeape77,
  • Like
Reactions: kel

flammy

Well-Known Member
Guess there is two threads going on this, repost and question
It say flowers not included, but then says said shipments are already illegal… how the fuck is that true. I signed for my Crafty shipped from S&B 2 weeks ago, guess that was illegal shipment???

“USPS notes that products like dry herb vaporizers, intended to vape cannabis flower rather than “solutions” like e-liquid or oil, may not fit the POSECCA definition, but are already prohibited from the U.S. Mail under separate rules. They are considered drug paraphernalia intended to be used with federally controlled substances, and therefore “unmailable.”

Its possible for two reasons. First, that is correct. Vapes were already technically nonmalleable due to the already codified drug paraphernalia law which is why the discussion regarding how much this will affect the industry is somewhat moot.

The reason why they were allowed to be shipped are two fold. First, the paraphernalia law that its referencing has two exemptions and one of them is a tobacco use exemption. This is why you will see almost everything in a head shop advertised for tobacco use only.

More importantly, the USPS have bigger problems on their plate. They simply lack the funding and manpower to effectively enforce that law. Keep in mind that the USPS was having difficulty enforcing the PACT Act even prior the amendment and inclusion of vapes. NY state along with a few others sued the USPS for lack of enforcement of the PACT Act:


The likelihood of vape manufacturers getting prosecuted over violations of this law is very low IMO.
 
Last edited:

vapeape77

Well-Known Member
Its possible for two reasons. First, that is correct. Vapes were already technically nonmalleable due to the already codified drug paraphernalia law which is why the discussion regarding how much this will affect the industry is somewhat moot. The reason why they were allowed to be shipped are two fold. First, the paraphernalia law that its referencing has two exemptions and one of them is a tobacco use exemption. This is why you will see almost everything in a head shop advertised for tobacco use only. Second, the USPS have bigger problems on their plate. They simply lack the funding and manpower to effectively enforce that law. Keep in mind that the USPS was having difficulty enforcing the PACT Act even prior the amendment and inclusion of vapes. NY state along with a few others sued the USPS for lack of enforcement of the PACT Act:


The likelihood of vape manufacturers getting prosecuted over violations of this law is very low IMO.
Thanks for the clarification 🤙 vape on!
 

Dan Morrison

Well-Known Member
Manufacturer
In my opinion this final ruling is good news for dry herb vaporizers. Like flammy already quoted, the final ruling does a great job at clarifying the whole "aerosolized solution" confusion.

This is the correct interpretation and semantics does matter when reading rulings or laws. According the USPS rule released yesterday (yet to be published or official):

"A solution is a mixture of chemical substances that is both homogenous (i.e., uniformly mixed) and stable (i.e., not prone to separating upon standing or filtration).

Raw or minimally processed organic matter, such as aromatic herb leaves, does not qualify as a “solution.” As such, if a device heats such matter to produce vapors for the user to inhale, that device does not operate “through an aerosolized solution” and thus falls outside the scope of the POSECCA definition. By the same token, its parts, components, and accessories (as well as the herbal matter used in the device) likewise fall outside of the POSECCA’s scope."

Source: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-22787.pdf

This is as clear as you can get. The dry herb debate is over.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
The regulations won't achieve much in the end, and it could take years to fix. On the upside, all the laws, police and prisons in the country have never stopped the masses from using.
 
howie105,
  • Like
Reactions: kel

cybrguy

Wear A Fucking Mask!
I really hope you guys are right that the final language of the law will include a carve out for dry herb vaping (DHV). Personally I don't expect that to be the case. I don't think the framers of the law care about protecting DHV. I think it is their intention to eliminate vaping (for the children) and whether through ignorance or design their view is that DHV is vaping and electronic devices that enable that should be illegal to ship. How it will be enforced and how aggressive they will be about it remains to be seen. We already have law prohibiting the mailing of cannabis delivery devices and we know that is barely enforced, but if this becomes a thing the general federal interference in the industry may dramatically increase.

Time will tell but if you feel you have any influence with your congresspeople, now is probably the time to make yourself heard, if it isn't already too late.
 

flammy

Well-Known Member
I really hope you guys are right that the final language of the law will include a carve out for dry herb vaping (DHV). Personally I don't expect that to be the case. I don't think the framers of the law care about protecting DHV. I think it is their intention to eliminate vaping (for the children) and whether through ignorance or design their view is that DHV is vaping and electronic devices that enable that should be illegal to ship. How it will be enforced and how aggressive they will be about it remains to be seen. We already have law prohibiting the mailing of cannabis delivery devices and we know that is barely enforced, but if this becomes a thing the general federal interference in the industry may dramatically increase.

Time will tell but if you feel you have any influence with your congresspeople, now is probably the time to make yourself heard, if it isn't already too late.

they can't have a carve out since that not be congruent with current federal stance on cannabis vape devices per the drug paraphernalia law.

this isn't about protecting children...its about safeguarding excise taxes. that was the original intent of pact and I fully believe that was the intent on the amendment. take a look at this and the disparity on excise taxes for vapor products between different states. it does provide incentive to skirt this taxes in a few states:


The state of NY along with a few others even sued the USPS due to their inability to effectively enforce the PACT act when it only covered analog cigarettes:


Its all about the taxes which is part of the reason why its unlikely for this to be enforced against cannabis device manufacturers. Additionally, as you've already pointed out, there is already a law that can be used to prosecute device makers so using the PACT act to do so does not make sense.

Furthermore, the ATF has scope of authority when its comes to interpreting and enforcing PACT which imo is a great factor. According to their most recent congressional buget submission, ATF has 8 core programs and none of which speak to cannabis related enforcement issues. Only one the programs is dedicated to alcohol and tobacco. The current DOJ focus is reduction of violent crimes and all of the ATF's critical missions are related to addressing that issue. None of the KPIs in the budget report speak to tobacco related enforcement let alone cannabis. They believe that the ROI to the tax payer is better if resources are spent combatting illegal distribution of firearms:


Additionally, there just isn't enough public or political support to crack down on the cannabis industry. Currently 36 states have some form of public access to cannabis whether it be medical or recreational with all but 3 states having some sort of low THC or CBD program. This in itself will soon put pressure on FDA to reschedule cannabis since its hard to say that cannabis provides zero medical benefits (which is one of the factors for being schedule 1).

Additionally, a big heavyweight recently entered the fight. While some see it as a negative, its hard to deny the political power that Amazon has and to have such a large domestic multi-state employer say that prior cannabis use by itself isn't justification to disqualify or terminate an employee is pretty big. Some states such as NY are already taking this approach.



This all said, I think that what we should be prepared for is the cumbersome regulation that will most likely come when cannabis is federally legalized. IMO, it will be a double-edged sword for the industry.
 

cybrguy

Wear A Fucking Mask!
this isn't about protecting children
Of course its not. It's about the money. It's always about the money. They use the children as their wedge, to make it look like they are doing something for society. Again, it is always about the money. The only reason cannabis is now legal rec in my state is the tax revenue.

I await the final wording of the law and how it is enforced.
 
Top Bottom