• Do NOT click on any vaporpedia.com links. The domain has been compromised and will attempt to infect your system. See https://fuckcombustion.com/threads/warning-vaporpedia-com-has-been-compromised.54960/.

Vaporizers To Be Banned In US Mail

flammy

Well-Known Member
Question:

Will the PMTA rules/deadline affect cannabis/concentrate vapes as well ?

Click HERE to see an explanantion of the PMTA rules, a deadline that's set for Septermber 9, 2020.

All this vape banning has me all kinda flustered ! :bang:😡👎✊

100% NO.

I imagine that the PMTA will affect dry herb vapes indirectly (e.g. 510 mods) but this bill does NOT ban dry herb vapes.

There has been quite a bit of confusion over this but if you read the bill in its entirety, its clear on its intent. The state of Massachusetts issued a ban a year or so ago I believe and dry herb vapes were effected initially. However, the verbiage on that ban was overly broad and ultimately the confusion was cleared up as dry herb vapes were excluded from that ban.
 

Planck

believes in Dog
Where in the world is this stance coming from that vaping must be proven 100% safe or it’s simply not allowed for consumption? Yet the alcohol and tobacco industries are allowed to be as harmful as they possibly can???
1) The Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry.
2) The pharma and tobacco cartels want a monopoly on the billion $ the vape market.
 

Kins

Well-Known Member
Where in the world is this stance coming from that vaping must be proven 100% safe or it’s simply not allowed for consumption? Yet the alcohol and tobacco industries are allowed to be as harmful as they possibly can???
If we applied the same buzz logic they used to crucify vitamin E acetate for causing vaping deaths in less than 100 people, then how do we possibly justify keeping cigarettes legal when according to the CDC they kill 450,000 Americans per year - that’s 1300 deaths PER DAY. That’s MORE American deaths per day from cigarettes than the CORONA VIRUS. 41,000 American deaths per year due to secondhand smoke and the gov wants to paint an image of a “vaping crisis.”

I’d also like to hear rational discussion on how E-cig flavors are “targeting kids“ but Confetti Cake, S’mores, and Pink Lemonade vodka isn’t?

Cigarettes were once considered "safe". It wasn't until many many many years later that they were proven to be harmful. No one said vaping must be proven 100 percent safe. The fact is people on here talk like it is 100 percent safe and people aren't dropping dead from combusting weed.

https://cen.acs.org/safety/consumer-safety/Vaping-exposes-users-toxic-metals/98/i12 -Mmm toxic metals!
 
Kins,

Delta3DStudios

Well-Known Member
Accessory Maker

TommyDee

Vaporitor
Good thing induction heaters are a generic tool :D

That forces vaping onto UPS, FEDEX, and DHL. Which often pawn their shipments off onto the USPS for that 'last mile' protocol. So how exactly is this going to be enforced?
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Them bastards snuck it into the new COVID relief bill



Page 2669 - 2671:
Thank GOD there's a provision extending a three year life to depreciate race horses. Without that, the Covid would win!

SEC. 603. NONMAILABILITY OF ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS. (a) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall promulgate regulations to clarify the applicability of the prohibition on mailing of cigarettes under section 1716E of title 18, United States Code, to electronic nicotine delivery systems, in accordance with the amendment to the definition of ‘‘cigarette’’ made by section 602. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The prohibition on mailing of cigarettes under section 1716E of title 18, Unit States Code, shall apply to electronic nicotine delivery systems on and after the date on which the United States Postal Service promulgates regulations under subsection 15 (a) of this section.

120 days after enactment, the USPS need to have regulations on the matter.
 
Last edited:

Delta3DStudios

Well-Known Member
Accessory Maker
Hmnnn... Sux! Sounds like a lot of flower vaping products are about to be relabeled aromatherapy devices. 😎
All where the help of some legal advice would be helpful - sadly I'm having a hell of a time finding any business lawyers in my region even on the NORML website - they all seem to be criminal law....
 
Delta3DStudios,
  • Like
Reactions: Moses Baca

Planck

believes in Dog
It appears this "law" only applies to nicotine delivery systems. (I am not a lawyer)

Covid relief, it hurts so good. Freedom, ma rights USUS etc.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Hmnnn... Sux! Sounds like a lot of flower vaping products are about to be relabeled aromatherapy devices. 😎
I thought of this as well. To me, it seems like a lot of the definitions for "e-cigarettes" are much the same in paraphernalia law. I'm not sure a legal e-cigarette, by definition, can be statutory paraphernalia. While the world has changed to make paraphernalia less of an issue for most, for those in the U.S. who still suffer such might get a reprieve.

Delta3DStudios said:
All where the help of some legal advice would be helpful - sadly I'm having a hell of a time finding any business lawyers in my region even on the NORML website - they all seem to be criminal law....
I don't know these guys personally, but they put on seminars and their blog focuses on cannabis.

Canna Law Blog™

Legal Support for the Cannabis Business Community Since 2010
harrisbricken.com
harrisbricken.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

floribud

Well-Known Member
The law basically makes it really hard to sell "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems"

So the first thing you need to do is look at the definition of "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems"
—The term ‘electronic nicotine delivery system’— ‘‘(A) means any electronic device that, through an aerosolized solution, delivers nicotine, flavor, or any other substance to the user inhaling from the device"

So the question now centers on what an "aerosolized solution" means. The law does not define "solution". So then we'll have to turn to generally accepted meanings and according to Webster "solution" means
a liquid mixture in which the minor component (the solute) is uniformly distributed within the major component (the solvent).
Okay so this looks good for Dry herb vape devices. Dried flower is clearly not a solution. Sure when you heat it, it creates an aerosol, BUT the source of the aerosol is NOT a solution.

So then we have to move on to dabs. This is big more complex. If you've added terpenes you've created a solution. But lets start with heat-pressed rosin (from dry herb or dry sift) either way it's hard to call this a solution.

To me it seems dry herb vaporizers should be in the clear, however those that advertise as dual-use concentrate devices might have a problem since you CAN put a solution in there and aerosolize it. That would be a terrible stretch of the term Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, but in general Government HEALTH regulators are terrible.

But what about distillate(mail order D8 and CBD stores)? If the residual solvents have been completely removed, I guess it's possible distillate could escape this definition, but once again if you add terpenes, I think you're screwed. But then again if you are only selling syringes, as opposed to vape carts, you might avoid this definition.

What we need is a push from Big Cannabis to get a rules "clarification" exempting devices primarily intended dry herbs. But it seems pretty hopeless right now for ModBoxes. I'm stocking up on a few more Ravages.
 

Kins

Well-Known Member
The law basically makes it really hard to sell "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems"

So the first thing you need to do is look at the definition of "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems"


So the question now centers on what an "aerosolized solution" means. The law does not define "solution". So then we'll have to turn to generally accepted meanings and according to Webster "solution" means

Okay so this looks good for Dry herb vape devices. Dried flower is clearly not a solution. Sure when you heat it, it creates an aerosol, BUT the source of the aerosol is NOT a solution.

So then we have to move on to dabs. This is big more complex. If you've added terpenes you've created a solution. But lets start with heat-pressed rosin (from dry herb or dry sift) either way it's hard to call this a solution.

To me it seems dry herb vaporizers should be in the clear, however those that advertise as dual-use concentrate devices might have a problem since you CAN put a solution in there and aerosolize it. That would be a terrible stretch of the term Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, but in general Government HEALTH regulators are terrible.

But what about distillate(mail order D8 and CBD stores)? If the residual solvents have been completely removed, I guess it's possible distillate could escape this definition, but once again if you add terpenes, I think you're screwed. But then again if you are only selling syringes, as opposed to vape carts, you might avoid this definition.

What we need is a push from Big Cannabis to get a rules "clarification" exempting devices primarily intended dry herbs. But it seems pretty hopeless right now for ModBoxes. I'm stocking up on a few more Ravages.

No way people that don't vape or know anything about weed are going to understand this the way you do.
 

floribud

Well-Known Member
Solutions exist amongst different phases - Aerosol literally means "aero-solution."
May it please the court...
The law doesn't saw "aerosols". Sure dry herb vaporizers create an aerosol. BUT the source of the aerosol is not a solution. The law bans devices that aerosolize solutions. The mighty or tera aerosolize dry herb. I'm seeing here that the lawmakers are going after things that hold liquids. If I was S&B's lawyer that's the argument I would make. I doubt the lawmakers even know what a dry herb vaporizer is. They are concerned with kids getting sneakable liquid-filled pens that don't smell like anything. Dry herb vapes are not the target this time. We'll either need a clarification from the FDA, and if they decide the wrong way, hopefully Boundless or S&B can take up the issue with a friendly judge in the 9th Circuit

even this article says nothing about dry herb vapes, it's all about liquids and oils

General advice, don't read the headline ... read the law. Remember everything that's not explicitly prohibited is legal, and I see nothing in the legislative intent to say that dry herb vapes should be included. If they want to included things that aerosolize dry herbs, why did they explicitly saw devices that "aerosolize solutions"...

Btw Trump is threatening a veto, because now he say $600 is not enough... he wants $2000. While I think that's awesome, I kind of feel like maybe that's something he should have told Mitch McConnell like a month ago.....
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
May it please the court...
The law doesn't saw "aerosols". Sure dry herb vaporizers create an aerosol. BUT the source of the aerosol is not a solution. The law bans devices that aerosolize solutions. The mighty or tera aerosolize dry herb. I'm seeing here that the lawmakers are going after things that hold liquids. If I was S&B's lawyer that's the argument I would make. I doubt the lawmakers even know what a dry herb vaporizer is. They are concerned with kids getting sneakable liquid-filled pens that don't smell like anything. Dry herb vapes are not the target this time. We'll either need a clarification from the FDA, and if they decide the wrong way, hopefully Boundless or S&B can take up the issue with a friendly judge in the 9th Circuit


even this article says nothing about dry herb vapes, it's all about liquids and oils

Btw Trump is threatening a veto, because now he say $600 is not enough... he wants $2000. While I think that's awesome, I kind of feel like maybe that's something he should have told Mitch McConnell like a month ago.....
Here's the deal. *IF* you get to try and make the argument, you're already in court. If you're in court trying to claim "solution" is the key word when they specifically mention an "electronic pipe" as a non-limiting example, you'll find the DA charged you for each and every violation.

A small businessman looking at 100 years in prison for sending out a gross of vaporizers through the mail, might not want to get far enough along in the process to even make a case before he pleads guilty to some BS in the hope of seeing family again someday.
 
Last edited:

DJ Colonel Corn

The Vapor Ninja
Well
Here's the issue.
As explained at https://vaping.org/press-release/using-covid-19-congress-bans-usps-vape-shipping/ ,

".. And due to sloppy drafting, the effects of the law will be felt beyond the world of nicotine. "

Here's a page from the actual bill:

aTRBxbl.jpg

So
"Despite the inclusion of the word “nicotine,” the definition used in the bill is so broad that it appears to capture vaping liquids containing CBD and standalone devices intended for vaping THC or other substances."

It sounds pretty broad to me, "any other substance".

As a nicotine vaper and cannabis oil vaper, this is absolutely the worst news of the year for my vaping career. I also operate a website, as you probably know, based on VAPING.

Awful.

I've also heard other horrible plan for some of the stimulus money, involving other countries, even.
Absolutely inexcusable.
 
Top Bottom