In a transfer that ought to encourage the hashish trade, the United States Postal Service (USPS) is delaying the implementation of its new guidelines for the enforcement of a ban on direct-to-consumer mailing of vaping merchandise. As we reported earlier this year, current amendments to the PACT Act (Preventing All Cigarette Trafficking) required the USPS to problem laws placing into impact the brand new ban on USPS mailing vape merchandise from retailers to shoppers.

I stay optimistic about mailability, regardless of the grim outlook currently with this information. One motive is that the ideas of statutory interpretation lend credibility to the argument that the ban does not apply to vaping merchandise that aren’t used to ship tobacco or nicotine. While the USPS might have banned vaping merchandise altogether as a part of the brand new rule, it now appears that they’re taking time to revisit the implications of an all-encompassing prohibition on shipments of vaping merchandise. The USPS should not exceed its personal authorized authority underneath the PACT Act by regulating vaping merchandise that fall outdoors the definition of tobacco product, as such a rule might be topic to problem by varied trade teams.

Photo through pxhere

If you’ve been following our PACT Act updates, by now you may 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.”

RELATED: It Just Got A Lot Harder To Ship Hemp And CBD Vapor Products

While many concern that this could routinely embody vaporizer elements which can be utilized in reference to marijuana and hemp merchandise, I’m not satisfied that that is the case and the USPS resolution to postpone the rule-making course of offers higher assist for such a place.


The Tobacco Control Act (TCA) supersedes the PACT Act if there’s a battle between the 2 payments, attributable to a provision within the PACT Act that states the legislation doesn’t alter or have an effect on the provisions of the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), which incorporates the TCA. The TCA doesn’t explicitly outline ENDS but it surely does outline Tobacco Products as follows:

[A]ny product made or derived from tobacco that’s meant for human consumption, together with any part, half, or accent of a tobacco product (aside from uncooked supplies aside from tobacco utilized in manufacturing a part, half, or accent of a tobacco product). (21 USC 321 (rr)(1).)

The TCA granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) broad authority to find out what merchandise have been thought-about “tobacco products” as a result of, along with granting FDA regulatory oversight over cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco and different conventional merchandise, the TCA additionally empowered the FDA to manage another tobacco merchandise it deemed to be topic to the TCA. In May 2016, the FDA issued the “Deeming Rule” to determine what novel merchandise can be topic to TCA.

RELATED: Vape Industry Under PACT Act Attack

The FDA has particularly defined what they think about to be ENDS underneath the TCA’s definition of “Tobacco Products.” That FDA interpretation excludes CBD, THC, or different hashish derivatives as a result of the FDA lacks the jurisdiction to manage such merchandise underneath the TCA. The FDA particularly defines ENDS in enforcement guidance:

Electronic nicotine supply techniques (or ENDS) embody units, elements, and/or components that ship aerosolized e-liquid when inhaled. For instance, FDA considers vapes or vape pens, private vaporizers, e-cigarettes, cigalikes, e-pens, e-hookahs, e-cigars, and e-pipes to be ENDS.

The FDA additional states that e-liquids typically consult with “liquid containing nicotine and nicotine-containing e-liquids (liquids combined with flavorings, colorings, and other ingredients).” If a vaporizer product, part, or accent: (1) doesn’t ship aerosolized e-liquid when inhaled, (2) doesn’t include nicotine or different materials made or derived from tobacco; (3) shouldn’t be meant or fairly anticipated for use with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product; and (4) shouldn’t be derived or constructed from tobacco and meant for human consumption, then the FDA doesn’t think about this to be included within the definition of an ENDS product or tobacco product altogether. Unlike the amended PACT Act, ENDS – for the aim of the TCA and Deeming Rule – shouldn’t be outlined to incorporate vapor units and equipment used with “other substances” that don’t include nicotine or tobacco.

What's The Real Reason Why The USPS Won't Ship Vaping Products?
Photo by Khwanchai Phanthong from Pexels


The inclusion of the time period “other substances” within the PACT Act definition of ENDS was seemingly meant by its drafters to seize formulations of e-liquids containing tobacco or nicotine that refined attorneys for the tobacco trade would argue are outdoors of the FDA’s framework underneath the TCA. The vapor market may be very widespread amongst younger individuals and the entire premise of the PACT Act is stopping underage tobacco gross sales and the avoidance of tobacco taxes. The PACT Act definition of ENDS goes past the TCA’s definition of ENDS, and it appears lawmakers needed to focus on the e-cigarette trade. But lawmakers didn’t learn the advantageous print, because the ENDS definition that they got here up with is completely inconsistent with the FDA’s Deeming Rule.

RELATED: What’s The Real Reason Why The USPS Won’t Ship Vaping Products?

The hashish vaporizer neighborhood might make the argument that the ENDS definition included within the PACT Act doesn’t cowl merchandise fairly anticipated for use with hashish or its derivatives together with THC, CBD, and hemp-derived merchandise. Those merchandise aren’t fairly anticipated for use for human consumption of a Tobacco Product.

The amended PACT Act explicitly doesn’t alter the FDCA which incorporates the TCA, indicating that the addition of “any other substance” to the definition of ENDS in all probability was not meant to seize non-nicotine and non-tobacco merchandise akin to hashish.


If lawmakers meant to actually change the way in which the federal authorities defines ENDS to incorporate non-tobacco and non-nicotine merchandise, it’s rational to imagine that Congress would have additionally amended the TCA to permit the FDA to manage these different substances. The technique transferring ahead must be to encourage USPS to particularly deal with the ENDS market due to the relation to nicotine and tobacco, as that is what’s statutorily required and approved by the PACT Act and something achieved in relation to hashish or hemp must be critically challenged by the trade.

Emily is a acknowledged skilled on cannabis-related authorized, regulatory, and coverage points, having labored with a variety of people and entities in each the private and non-private sector. You can contact Emily at or (503) 488-5424.

This article originally appeared on Green Light Law Group and has been reposted with permission.

Source link