Ethics Of Selling/Buying Unused No Gum Postage?

Is it unethical to sell/buy high value (express/priority) unused no gum stamps. I know that once a stamp has fulfilled its franking purposes it is considered used and unavailable to be used again according to the USPS rules. What if I bought such off of ebay and then used them to send mail? Could I get in trouble? What would be the violation (specific rule citation please) and how would they know? Any additional comments are welcome. Thanks! Wolf-==-

18 U.S.C. 1720, third paragraph. Once a postage stamp has been used, it is a federal crime to reuse a stamp whether cancelled or not.

"How would they know?" --If they don't know or can't find out, would that make it ethically right for you? Just because you can get away with it, doesn't mean you should.

Some stamps may be tagged, and soaking and reusing washes off or disrupts the taggant. They can detect non-tagged stamps that are supposed to be tagged.

The previous post is absolutely correct, but just to add an element of extra emphasis to it, U.S.C. 1720 also prohibits the following:




As I read it, if you are a collector and intend to keep the stamps for collecting purposes only (not for re-use as postage) it's legal and ethical; on the other hand, if your intent is to pay postage with these stamps or sell them to others with similar intent, you are in violation of the Law.

Here's the official USPIS Warning on the subject:



Here's the wording of the actual Law (U.S.C. 1720):



I know many collectors may argue the points, but the bottom line is that it is unethical and a violation of the law to sell the stamps with the intent to re-use them, or to actually re-use them even if they were not purchased but perhaps given to you.

In practical application, though, the USPS has more important things to do than to track down a private citizen re-using an occasional stamp or two, as the cost to prosecute any such violation would, in most cases, far exceed the value of lost postage revenue.

I would think that the use of higher value stamps (i.e. Express and/or Priority Mail) or continued use of lower volume stamps on many pieces of mail would more than likely prompt an investigation.

Bottom line: It's like many other laws on the books, although some may get away with it, the small value of postage is just not worth the risk of getting caught and ruining your reputation because of criminal charges that may be brought against you.

Illegal yes, unethical a matter of opinion as is all ethics.

As I see it, it's up to the postal service to cancel the stamp after it's been turned over to their custody. If they don't, then they've not completed the postal process, so the stamp is still viable for further use. That's their error, so hard luck on them. They should cancel stamps which pass through their hands - that's always been the case.

I agree with you Ringo, which is what makes it illegal but ethical from my viewpoint.

I've never reused postage myself, for the aforementioned legal and ethical reasons. In my mind, it would be similar to finding someone else's used item in the garbage and then trying to take it back to a store for a refund, just because it still looks new. I'll be honest that the thought of reusing postage has crossed my mind, usually as an imagined payback for the USPS seemingly never cancelling stamps on mail sent to me (that'll teach 'em!). But it never goes farther than that given the ethical problems I have with doing that. Plus, the cost of postage is pretty cheap and I'm not that hard up where I need to cheat the postal service out of 50 cents or even a buck or three.

There are some on ebay that sell large quantities of stamps without gum. Does anyone know if these stamps are just soaked off of parcels with unused/uncancelled stamps or are the cancels somehow washed off of used stamps from parcels with cancels?

I think only the sellers of those items could answer for sure, but I'd guess they're just soaked-off stamps that didn't get cancelled. Yes, there are other ways of stamps losing their gum, but I'm skeptical that these lots come from anything but mail in most cases. I bet I could put together a $50 face value lot of used but uncancelled stamps right now if I wanted to. While letter-type mailings generally get cancelled, stamps used on package mailings rarely get cancelled in my experience. It's not unusual at all for me to get a priority mail envelope with over $5 in postage on it with not a single stamp cancelled. The ones that do get cancelled were probably only done so at the sender's request (probably accompanied by an eye roll on the part of the postal clerk).

I've sold a batch of used, unfranked stamps on ebay which I retrieved from kiloware. The British Post Office is so bad at franking stamps these days, that if you buy a bag of modern GB kiloware which is genuinely unsorted, you stand to find enough face-value to pay for the kiloware.

A stamp cannot be "franked." A letter can be. Frank derives from "freed"--a franked letter is a letter free of postal charge, either by signature of an official or by placing a stamp on it (or some other method). 'Cancelled' is the word we need here.

Regarding justifying the re-use/selling of used postage (not for collecting) that is not cancelled because the postal service is at fault for not cancelling the stamps to begin with...

-- As far as I know, there is no legal requirement for them to cancel the stamp to "complete the postal process". In general, the postal process is completed when the item is delivered to the correct address. Although I do agree that it is a poor business practice for any postal service to not make a greater effort to make sure all postage stamps are cancelled. It's a problem since the days of the Penny Black. Most businesses do rely to a considerable extent on trusting their customers. Apparently, in this case, both the business and some of the customers disagree on the expectations of "cancelled/uncancelled" used stamps.

-- Two wrongs don't always make a right.

-- I'm not sure that blaming someone else's failure as a justification for doing something illegal is a wise principle in ethics. I've heard that reason as justification for far too many actions, including more than a few that 99% of people would consider highly unethical. I can see scenarios where that principle can be applied, but is this really one of them? As was noted in an above post -- sometimes there's not much difference between ethics and opinions. One of the reasons why we have laws.

Finally, consider the following: Before I enter a store, I find a receipt on the ground that just happens to be for the item I want to purchase. The store does not (or fails to) make an additional mark on the receipt when people exit the doors. Is it OK for me to go in the store, get the item since I have a receipt in hand? They failed to make sure the receipt could not be re-used. (Before you laugh, people have actually tried to do that with their own receipts) Nobody has to answer. Just something to think about.

The US Congress has rejected that view, as reflected in the criminal statute previously cited, so in the US, that view doesn't matter any more. Things may be different in other countries, but the OP was about the US.

Because I was the one that said that ethics is opinion, I'll add to that. If you want to get philosophical, laws are opinions as well, just the result of more of them. Should we respect every law? It depends. Some laws are unethical IMO. Depends on who passed the laws.

I haven't used previously used postage that was uncanceled. I wouldn't need a justification to help me get over the illegality of it should I decide to do it. Personally, its probably something I wouldn't do as its akin to robbery. something against my principles, but not because its against the law.

If you are willing to accept the penalty of breaking the law and finds it does not violate your principles, then go ahead. But please don't do it in my neighborhood.

I have worked in grocery for years and usually have seen school kids pulling this prank. One will go in and buy an item, then another will go in with that receipt and grab one off the shelf and walk out with that product as well.

If I am speeding on the highway, and the policeman sitting in his car with the radar gun doesn't pull me over, have I broken the law?

Basically, I believe If you think it in your heart, your already guilty. If you have to ask if its wrong, it probably is.

.

Several points raised there. You seem to be focusing quite heavily on legalities. Legalities and ethics are hardly the same - take the law cited above, which appears to have been passed in 2012. So, were ethics different in 2011? And if the law changes again tomorrow, do the ethics change too? When was the law morally correct and when was it morally incorrect?

My justification for doing something illegal is not by blaming someone else's failure, as you say. It's because I don't respect that law, and think the postal services need to take responsibility for what they are doing - legal obligation or not. If I put excess postage on a letter, I don't expect them to give me some money back. Ditto, if they give me an un-cancelled stamp by dropping it through my door, I'm free to use it as I wish, so far as I'm concerned.

Incidentally, I would point out that we all break laws all the time, and it's silly to pretend otherwise, or take some moral high-ground over the issue. Ever driven one mile an hour over the speed limit - that's a crime. Ever made a phone call from work without written permission - that's stealing. Ever found something in the street and picked it up and kept it? We all do things like this all the time, and in that sense, everyone is a criminal. You have to evaluate your actions and the consequences of them and come to your own moral judgement.