flammy
Well-Known Member
Nice post @Touf2n1 , vaporizers wasn't in our culture although I noticed a large increase in the interest about vaporizers... since a few months and friends at LCV confirmed me this tendency.
The Taffee Bowle will be probably sold on LCV pretty soon, but I agree Vapefiend and Verdampnotchmal already have it in stock,maybe it's cause LCV was just waiting to see how peoples are appreciating the device, it's pretty innovative and, cause the glass thing, some peoples are kept away. I read some posts on Reddit where peoples was seeing that glass like a gimmick... but I assume more peoples would be inclined to buy it but more cause the vaping performances rather than for the glass (personnaly I never used my glass and it ended to be a sort of vape pen storage thing).
I saw many petitions about that law although can I assume no-US peoples votes don't have any impact...? Is Canada thinking to do the same about vaporizers/e-cigs shipments?
Hi, @EliumVapor , it's too bad, if you can't ship any vaporizers and only sells in physicals place it will be very, very difficult for small "artisan" or "start-up" companies to launch... I believe the huge cannabis market profits may help to find a solution to continue shipments under some conditions, if you have to pick-up your package in a local store and MUST to show an identity card at the name of the recipient I can't see how big is the issue (yes you can ask to an older guy to order for you if you are a child but it's pretty the same with a physical store so...). On top of that this sort of delivery system (where you pick up your package in a local store) is usually cheaper but a bit more cumbersome than home delivery without signature for sure, but I believe it may be a good compromise
If this is happen (no more vaporizers shipments allowed) only bigger companies will survive cause, like MistVape said, if they are doing false declaration they may have so much fines to pay... no, it's not doable or maybe trying to play on the wording, if you declare it as an electronical device you aren't lying, just not precise at all
Is it already done? Is there still some hopes? I ask cause somebody posted a date for Usps, UPS and Fedex....
The recent amendment to the PACT Act ("Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act") does not affect the majority of dry herb devices. The intent of the amendment was to address the rise in the use of nicotine among the youth in the US which is the reason why the legislation that proposed the amendment to the PACT Act was called the "Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act". What specifically happened is that the definition of a "Cigarette" as found in the PACT Act was amended to include ENDS ("Electronic Nicotine Delivery System"). Whether a device is affected by this amendment is completely dependent on whether it meets the definition of an ENDS. Specifically, an ENDS product is defined as “any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device,” including “an e-cigarette; an e-hookah; an e-cigar; a vape pen; an advanced refillable personal vaporizer; an electronic pipe; and any component, liquid, part, or accessory of a device described [above], without regard to whether the component, liquid, part, or accessory is sold separately from the device. (Note that there is a common theme in the legislation involved...they all clearly were created to deal with tobacco and the term that was modified was Cigarette; additionally the enforcement agency for this is the ATF rather than the DEA)
The definition of ENDS has several limiting factors that are listed in order of priority. First, it needs to be electronic and then second, it needs to be able to aerosolize a solution. This means that all butane driven devices (eg Dynavap, Vapman, etc) would not be considered an ENDS as it doesn't satisfy the first limiting factor of being electronic. The next step is to determine whether the device is designed to aerosolize a solution and in order to do that, its helpful to know what a solution is gernally defined as in this context. From Oxford Dictionary: a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the solvent). This is what nicotine juice is and demonstrably not dry herb.
Additionally, we can take further cues from the USPS themselves as they submitted a proposed rule regarding this the PACT Act amendment. The title itself is telling as it relates to the intent: "Treatment of E-Cigarettes in the Mail". (https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...1-03393/treatment-of-e-cigarettes-in-the-mail)
We can also look to the FDA and the way that they define ENDS and take note of the fact that they explicitly state that ENDS are noncombustible tobacco products and dry herb is very much combustible.
"Vapes, vaporizers, vape pens, hookah pens, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes or e-cigs), and e-pipes are some of the many terms used to describe electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). ENDS are noncombustible tobacco products.
These products use an “e-liquid” that may contain nicotine, as well as varying compositions of flavorings, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and other ingredients. The liquid is heated to create an aerosol that the user inhales. "
E-Cigarettes, Vapes, and other ENDS
Get an overview of FDA regulation of vapes, e-cigarettes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems. You can also find statistics about current use.
The issue is that the definition of ENDS was created broadly enough to deal with folks who would sell a device that is capable of vaping nicotine juice but would try to advertise in a way to circumvent the ENDS definition. One could most likely use an ecig device to deliver a substance other than nicotine and it wouldn't be too hard to imagine folks wanting to say that the device delivered something else instead so as to skirt the definition. This is why the "any other substance" part is included in the definition. Essentially, an ENDS is a device that is electronic and can aerosolize a solution regardless of what substance is within that solution (CBD, THC, nicotine). This definitely means that all carts of all varieties are affected and this vagueness is concerning for devices that are used for concentrates. Although concentrates (not carts) are not a solution, the devices used for concentrates are typically capable of aerosolizing a solution which puts it into a grey area.
Currently, the requirements under the PACT Act are self imposed so the maker/manufacturer will need to make an assessment on whether what they are selling/shipping can be reasonably considered an ENDS. If people are waiting for clarification that would explicitly exclude dry herb devices from the definition of ENDS, I think that wait is futile as long as cannabis is illegal on a federal level since doing so would conflict with the fact that cannabis is federally outlawed.
Last edited:
