I just got in touch with one of Senator Kay Baily Hutchison’s (R-TX) assistants regarding S.1147 and was surprised to find that her position is officially “Uncommitted.” Her case is unusual in that she’s running for Governor of Texas while serving out her Senate term, but all it takes is one Senator to completely stall a Bill. Evidently, it’s more controversial beneath the surface than I originally thought because of its potential adverse effects on all kinds of huge internet businesses that have nothing to do with tobacco, like Amazon. In other words, it would open the door for Federal regulation of interstate commerce via the internet in order to help states collect sales taxes on out of state transactions. And big companies like Amazon wouldn’t like that AT ALL. So there is a much broader issue in play: Whether Federal Government Agencies should be used to help State Governments collect taxes, or whether it should be up to the states. There is obviously some big money behind the scenes in opposition to it, which is why it’s proponents are getting pretty frantic about it. This also explains why it keeps getting shot down every time it’s introduced, despite everyone paying lip service in favor of it. It still might pass this time, but it’s nice to know that you’ve got some big corporate money on your side, even though it has to take place behind the scenes for political reasons. To keep abreast of the lastest news, the clearing house link for information diseeminated by the “pro” S.1147 side is below. The editorial slant is highly propagandistic, but it never hurts to know what your enemies are thinking. http://www.coalitiontostopcontrabandtobacco.com/content/contact
My point excately. There is so much in goverment where they try to look like they are trying. This way they don’t piss off either side too much. Of course I’am well versed in such practices I live in a state that has a State liqour board that sells booze. The state booze laws really fit into this don’t piss either side off. For example you can only buy so much beer in one trip to the store. The thing is you can make as many trips as you want as long as you walk out the door first. This accomplishes nothing but doesn’t piss drinkers off too much and the teetotalers get to pretend that something is being done to protect use from excessive drunks. Nothing accomplished besides spin.
“Civic compromise”, bob. That’s me spinning
Regarding that, here is some interesting language at the end of the bill: SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT OF THIS ACT. It is the sense of Congress that unique harms are associated with online cigarette sales, including problems with verifying the ages of consumers in the digital market and the long-term health problems associated with the use of certain tobacco products. This Act was enacted recognizing the longstanding interest of Congress in urging compliance with States’ laws regulating remote sales of certain tobacco products to citizens of those States, including the passage of the Jenkins Act over 50 years ago, which established reporting requirements for out-of-State companies that sell certain tobacco products to citizens of the taxing States, and which gave authority to the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to enforce the Jenkins Act. In light of the unique harms and circumstances surrounding the online sale of certain tobacco products, this Act is intended to help collect cigarette excise taxes, to stop tobacco sales to underage youth, and to help the States enforce their laws that target the online sales of certain tobacco products only. This Act is in no way meant to create a precedent regarding the collection of State sales or use taxes by, or the validity of efforts to impose other types of taxes on, out-of-State entities that do not have a physical presence within the taxing State. Even if it is, “in no way meant to create a precedent” that may very well what it does and what companies like Amazon fear. Yes, it is nice to have some rich corporate allies however unintentional their support is. On another note, reading this bill it is not at all clear to me whether pipe tobacco is included in the ban or not. Cigarettes, ryo tobacco, any oral tobacco and nasal snuff are specifically included. Cigars are specifically (and hypocritically) excluded. But there is no specific inclusion or exclusion of pipe tobacco that I’ve seen in my reading of the bill. Could someone clarify?
@ proboscis Mainly, I reported what I heard from an anonymous “inside” source. Certainly, the way the act is worded is problematic; I can’t find pipe tobacco either, and how does one differentiate between pipe tobacco, and “flavoring” for pipe tobacco, which is what some people use their nasal snuff for? Some people on another thread have speculated about packaging snuff as “cigars” but that seems a bit over the top. At any rate, the “cigar” exemption is bewildering, and I have yet to receive an explanation of the logic that underlies it. I have not read the Bill in it’s entirety, for example your citation of Sec. 10 is the first time I’ve even seen that part of it. Whether Congress intends their Bill to serve as a precedent is irrelevant, it WILL serve as precedent if enacted into law. Note the interesting expression of intent to use Federal Law and Law Enforcement Agencies “to help states enforce their laws…” while explicitely acknowledging that such enforcement mechanisms would only apply to this one kind of transaction. Even State Laws governing the dispensation of Controlled Substances and collection of property, income and sales taxes cannot be enforced via Federal Agencies. I don’t even think Federal Law Enforcement can coerce compliance with a state Child Support decree, except in the sense of acknowledging its existence in Bankruptcy Court. Federal Law can over rule State Law, but to the best of my knowledge it cannot be legally used as an enforcement mechanism for State Law. Even if it passes, an enterprising attorney could have a field day with it in Federal Court. I never had occasion to think about it this deeply, but talk about opening up a can of worms! Maybe this is why similar Bills in 2003 and 2007 never came up for a vote before the Senate, even after having passed through committee and been voted on by Congress.
well… I know next to nothing about this but… don’t people make their own cigars? I’m sure they do I’ve seen comments about that somewhere… so can people sell “Cigar Tobacco” (is that something different than any other types of tobacco, is it designated that way?) and on this forum I think I’ve seen people talking about grinding up cigar tobacco for snuff… if push came to shove we might have to buy cigar tobacco and grind it at home I guess If pipe tobacco is left alone that’d be even better, more options, and some of that can double as MRYO/RYO tobacco as well
@whistlrr The bill that I’ve read refers to Internal Revenue Code section 5702 which defines ryo tobacco, pipe tobacco and cigars amongst other things: a) Cigar ‘‘Cigar’’ means any roll of tobacco wrapped in leaf tobacco or in any substance containing tobacco (other than any roll of tobacco which is a cigarette within the meaning of subsection (b)(2)).
Re-kaybailey I emailed her regarding SCHIP and got back an email stating that she had consistently opposed excessive tobacco taxes. Two days later, she was one of only three Republican senators who voted for SCHIP. She’ll vote for PACT. At least, I’ll have the satisfaction on not voting for her or “Toll-road Fairy” Perry this fall.
Medina wouldn’t take a stance on whether 9/11 was plotted by the US. You have just entered… The Twilight Zone.
I got a call from Sen. John Cronyn’s office today when I was unable to answer my cell phone, wanting to talk to me about my opposition to the Bill and the Op-Ed piece I’m working on. I think the Senator’s staff member wants to put his position in the best possible light (no surprises there) but hopefully I’ll get some informed word on the logic behind the cigar “exemption” which fascinates me. My idea is to paint S.1147 as an extremely dangerous bill for all online retailers and their consumers insofar as it seeks to “get the camels nose under the tent” in creating a framework to use Federal Government to help enforce state tax laws and restricitions on interstate commerce. For example, if a Bill like this is passed, and the governments of the New England states passed a law forbidding their citizens from buying goods that were not produced in union shops, the Federal Government could step in and create serious obstacles to the paying for and shipping such goods. In the grand scheme of things, it would lay the groundwork for an alliance between State and Federal Governments that would undermine the Federalist organization of the U.S. by using the easy target of contraband tobacco sales to create the beginnings of a nationwide regulatory framweork to support individual states’ restricitons on what their residents may or may not buy from merchants located in other states. Very anti-free market, and an argument that I hope will make at least a few Republican’s think twice in continuing to support it, especially in the light of their ongoing obstructionism in Congress and the fact that the Bill’s primary sponsor is a liberal Democrat from Wisconsin. I’ll post the results when I get to talk to Cornyn’s assistant next week.
I am sure that you will continue to ship to the states, Roderick, but I doubt the few other shops would do the same. Perhaps you could start selling other brands? It might sound stupid, but it would give you even more business.
The cigar exemption was explained in another related thread. Basically the cigar producers are against it, so no one wants to raise their ire. Cigarettes are 99% of what is smuggled. The cigarette makers seem to be in favor or ambivalent towards the bill. The “C” in PACT is for “cigarette.” Snuff just somehow got caught in the middle since the bill specifies smokeless. @ LHB: governments of the New England states passed a law forbidding their citizens from buying goods that were not produced in union shops That’s kooky and would be unconstitutional. The laws on interstate commerce are already pretty specific and thorough. The issue is that they are not enforced.
@Xander There are no “laws” governing interstate commerce. There is just the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8) and the various legal precedents that have emerged in attempting to figure out what it means. Given the exceedingly convoluted and inconsistent case law that has grown up around its interpretation, it doesn’t appear to be very “specific and thorough” at all. One of the landmark decisions in this area, which gave rise to the so-called “Cardozo Rule” (Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, 1935) had to do with a New York law which made it illegal to sell milk in New York that was purchased in another state. It was indeed found to be “kooky” and unconstitutional, but that doesn’t stop states from continually trying to restrict interstate commerce in order to redistribute income from workers to state governments or the corporate interests that control them. The PACT Act would formalize an enforcement mechanism wherebye the Federal Government would use it’s police powers to ensure compliance with “kooky” state laws that seek to restrain interstate commerce, which would appear to me to be unconstitutional. I’m glad we agree on that. Furthermore, as you must know if you ever tried to smoke your medicinal cannabis in front of a Federal Law Enforcement Official in California, the Commerce Clause has also been used to pre-empt many state laws that seem to be completely in keeping with even a broad interpretation of the Constitution. I would also be interested to know why anyone would give a FF about raising the ire of cigar producers. I suspect it has a lot more to do with raising the ire of cigar consumers. Wake up and smell the corruption. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm
Cigarette makers, I could understand being for it. Most every shop in the nation sells cigs. They’d want to stop bootlegging, and they want their profits, and the shops and government taxes want their take too. But our issue, is different than cig smokers, as we enjoy a more niche item, that is not readily available everywhere like cigs are. Snuff and snus, the real stuff, we like, imported, is not at the corner gas station, and we are forced, for the most part to order online. The ire is a possible prevention of us having what we want. Nasal snuff and snus should be exempted, like cigars.
All I can say is I am sick of how our american government is invading our rights as americans and grown adults telling us that the taxes and restrictions are for our own good. HYPOCRITES is what they are, and not to step on any toes here, they say a women has a right to kill her unborn child if she so chooses, but I am to believe that banning smoking of any kind and taxing tobacco through the roof is to save lives. Why because the goverment cares so much about life…Whatever.
One reason they exempt cigars, though they don’t talk about, it is that Honduras and Nicaragua would go communist if they wern’t avoiding loosing their main cigar market as Cuba did. They arn’t worried about Germany or the UK going communist if they loose the miniscule US snuff market, or for that matter Sweden over the snus market.
@tom502 Excellent point. Most people prefer paying less to more for something, but a good example of “civic compromise” would be to let users of exotic tobacco products continue to buy with age verification and just charge them state sales and tobacco taxes. It would increase the cost of doing business for retailers, and hopefully users would be willing to cover those costs. If not, then I guess we U.S. snuff users would have to find another habit, or make some friends abroad. @Nachman That is an excellent point that I hadn’t thought of at all. There are alll sorts of strange relationships and motivations underlying the law, and maintaining political stability in unstable countries could certainly be one of them. With all this hidden, devious motivation speculation (which seems sensible to me), I have to wonder if there’s anyone in power who simply cares about a realistic approach to tobacco harm reduction, or maintaining the liberty of tobacco users as long as the latter are willing to accept the consequences of their actions. You know, something sensible and straightforward. Or is it all just cynical, underhanded, corrupt politics as usual?
Altria (Philip Morris USA) and R.J. Reynolds have invested heavily in the cigar trade over the past two decades. Not only do they control distribution and in effect dictate policy in Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican, etc., they are also in bed with an extensive retail channel, which they do not want to alienate. Hence the cigar exception. Besides, rich constituents enjoy cigars and some spend quite a bit of money on them. They don’t want to piss off those people either. Sad, but true. @LHB: Unfortunately, there are no sane (or even insane!) proponents of tobacco harm reduction in the U.S. government. Ask Dr. Brad Rodu how many times he has tirelessly beat his head against the wall over this very issue. His tobacco harm reduction blog is here: [url]http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/[/url] I fear that we will soon be figuring out which are the best cigars to grind into snuff.
@ kjoerup Your point is very well taken, especially about the influence of large American corporations on Central American politics. It used to be bananas (which is where the term “gunboat diplomacy” comes from, I think) and the U.S. Fruit Company; now it’s tobacco. The one thing we have going in our favor, at least in the Southern States, is a large consituency for smokeless tobacco. You can’t illegalize nasal snuff and keep “dip” legal. As far as shutting down mail order sales go, I suspect there are legalistic ways of getting around that if it actually happens. Some would be expensive, like paying $200 for a license to be a tobacco retailer, and then buying wholesale, but it would still be a lot cheaper than having cigars as your main hobby. That’s an easy $15 dollar per day jones, at least. Not to mention all the people who continue to “run” the embargo from Cuba. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean there isn’t quite a market for it.
would be good to get Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican, etc interested in making nasal snuff maybe @LHB thats intresting about the bananas etc (I vague recall that might be where the phrase ‘banana republic’ might have come from too), don’t know much at all about it though. What way did they say bananas were dangerous and that we all ‘for our own good’ had to be protected from them? (I’m sure there was something, something equally stupid, maybe potasium overdoses or dangers of fruit that had evil fruit flies on it, had to be something)