I have been looking around the web and I was wondering if nicotiana rustica is treated the same under the law (I’m in Canada, but other places would be nice to know) as n. tobaccum. In reality, it’s not tobacco. So if a person manufactured an herbal snuff with a degree of n. rustica (humour me!) in it… would it be liable to taxation and regulation as per se n. tobaccum? Thanks.

To my understanding, the term tobacco extends to a number of species in the nicotiana genus, and is not exclusive to n. tobaccum. There are species, properly called tobacco, which are used as decorative plants and industrial pesticides, rather than recreation. At least so far as the common use of the term applies, that is. I do not know where legal usage draws the line in classifying certain plants as tobacco. However, I do not think it would be historically inconsistent for modern tobacco legislation to overlook such a technicality, what with the generalization and demonization of tobacco as a whole being a common motive in passing these laws. After all, most lawyers are not biologists. Interesting supposition! I’ll read through whatever legal documentation I can find to check if any governments actually specify which species they regard as tobacco.

@LeNezz, you can bet they would tax it. What part of Canada are you in? I’m in Ontario and they’ve announced more tax increases on tobacco in today’s budget. Big surprise, eh?

Yeah, I’m in Ottawa… No end to the tax-driven gravy train. Kpod, let me know if you find something out.

I’ve checked the published statutes of a few regulatory agencies, like Health Canada and The US Tax and Trade Bureau, none of which specified tobacco by species. I’m going to search further, and maybe look into some independent agencies like the WHO. It seems extremely negligent for written laws and codes to overlook deliberating a controlled plant by species. I mean, they don’t leave any guesses as to which plant marijuana laws refer to. Law, as an institution and a philosophy, is, at its foundation, no more than the implementation of detail.

Yeah… its curious. I guess they assume N. Tobaccum is the only desire able ‘tobacco’ and so that’s what is referenced. I think precedent would infer N. Tobaccum in court. Hmm… maybe a new rustica snuff mill industry in Canada would give a kick start to a snuff reawakening in the Great White North

Closest I have found to a definition is ‘tobacco is a plant that contains the drug nicotine’ which I guess covers n. rustica… but this message s not from a gov site.

Well, if its an issue of import, and if I were the exporter, I’d label the customs slip “nicotiana rustica.” I’m sure it would pass through even the stringent Canadian customs service.

I think that’s why they label it Mapacho… confuses the fuck out of the CBSA.

So, I have come to the point of sending an email to the Gov’t of Ontario, through their e-laws service. It states that they get to emails within 2 days and respond within 15. I kept it short and sweet:

“I can’t seem to find a definition of “tobacco” in the various laws and acts. Can you please confirm whether or not the act specifically refers to Nicotiana Tobaccum.”

We’ll see what they come back with. 

 Rustica is referred to as wild tobacco. But tax man can tax anything they want.  N Rustica, Mapacho is the south american aztec  name.  Thuoc lao the Vietnam name and just wild tobacco in the northern hemisphere.  Many plants contain nicotine ,Eggplant ,tomatoes ,potatoes and other nightshades. Mullein & lobelia inflata is often referred to as Indian tobacco and it not tobacco.

Yeah, I was aware of all that jazz. I just want the draconian gov’t of Ontario to either baffle me with bullsh*t or come up with a definitive answer. Eitherway, I will find a legal workaround eventually. Whatever the gov’t’s views are on tobacco - they are even planning on banning flavoured dips!!! - it doesn’t negate the fact that it’s cultivation and use is culturally significant. My goal is to find some way to share my experimental research on F-C tobacco and snuff use with others when the time comes.

The saga continues. I contacted Service Ontario for further information and precision on the Tobacco Act, whether or not this act covers just N. Tobacum or all species of Nicotiana. They couldnt help me, said it was a matter for the Department of Agriculture. I called the DoA, they were baffled by the question and could not provide me with an answer and suggested I call the Ontario Flue?Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, which I find odd, but ok. I called the Board and they stated that they only deal in Raw Leaf Tobacco (RLT) which are of the N. Tobacum species, such as but not limited to the varieties Virginia, Virginia Gold and Burley. But, they were also confused as to whether N. Rustica falls under the category of tobacco, so they had me call the Ministry of Finance. I called the MoF as they oversee the regulation of RLT and, lo and behold,couldnt give me an answer. So they suggested I call the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit and speak to the project manager Dan Van-Horne.

Dan Van-Horne is fing amazing! He is passionate about tobacco, has been involved in the biological research of tobacco for many years. He confirmed that their research focuses specifically on N. Tobaccum and its varieties. He said that at times they may look for bio-traits in other species of Nicotiana, but that it is for introduction into the species N. Tobacum. Though he was walking a tightrope for me in my question, he said that RLT is concerned solely with N. Tobacum and that in his own opinion the legislation is built around that.

But, he also stated that the government will interpret the act however they see fit, so it is best that I write a letter to the Ministry of Finance to get a more precise answer. He said that to his mind, N. Rustica would have no financial benefit to the government beyond regular sales taxes, just like any other goods moving around.

Getting there, but its slow.

Nice to see some answers from David Van Horne at least. I’m afraid that if there is any ambiguity in the laws now they will fix that to include rustica if much attention is brought to the matter. Cannabis indica and cannabis sativa are both considered marijuana in the eyes of the law even though each type has different properties. We could see the same thing happen with tobacco.

Here in the UK we’re very lucky as there is no duty charged on snuff. As for elsewhere, if you start asking questions of people who have no answers, they might start asking questions too. That might not always be a good thing, as some people might start rewriting the book to get the answers they want to see. Just saying. Another way of looking at the same issue would be to identify what lab tests would be carried out to determine if this hypothetical snuff contained tobacco. If that test would return a positive from rustica as well as tobaccum (irrespective of clarity on legal classification), then chances are it would face the same legalities. Please do note this is all pure guesswork on my part. Just letting my mind roam free.

I asked him the question as someone who wanted to sell live plants in a nursery, not someone who wanted to use it for snuff. I listed off a number of plants, ornamental mostly, of the nicotiana family. I named rustica as one of the last. 

Van Horne stated that there are no tests, that he is aware of in Canada, that would be cost effective and precise enough to discern the species in a hybrid. It is possible, of course, but he would highly doubt it would be an issue. He didnt see any issues with seedlings as they are not part of the act. He pointed me to this exerpt on the MoF website.

On January 1, 2015, the Ministry of Finance began its oversight of raw leaf tobacco. Under the Raw Leaf Tobacco Program the ministry will be issuing registration certificates and carrying out inspections and investigations as required.

The Ministry of Finance oversight of raw leaf tobacco applies to all aspects of raw leaf tobacco activity in Ontario. This includes both raw leaf tobacco that was grown in Ontario and raw leaf tobacco that has been imported into Ontario.

What is Raw Leaf Tobacco?

For the purposes of the Raw Leaf Tobacco Program, raw leaf tobacco includes all varieties of unmanufactured tobacco grown in or brought into Ontario, including flue?cured, dark?fire?cured/dark?air?cured (also known as black) and burley tobacco. It does not include seedlings.

I read that as well. But there are exception of 3kg of raw leaf for personal use, grown or imported. I know. A gentleman that rolls his own cigars from leafonly.com and dealt with the cbsa, in the end he only had to pay HST

@canadiansnuffer I believe the personal limit for home grown is 15kg. At least I hope it is, otherwise I’ve gone well over my limit the last couple of years!

According to the MoF, one can produce up to 15kg for personal use as well. Which is more than enough imo.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/tax/tt/rawleaf.html

Im sure you read it, just posting link for the benefit of others.

Sorry, yes 3kg to buy or import, 15 to grown. I was considering buying and not growing, my mistake! “-buy up to 3 kilograms of raw leaf tobacco for his or her own personal use import up to 3 kilograms of raw leaf -tobacco for his or her own personal use”