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)).

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)

Now I am hearing the Pact act was passed and just waiting for Mao to sign it.

Yes, S.1147 passed the Senate with unanimous consent – meaning that no senator objected – on March 11. [url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1147[/url] I’m a bit surprised that this was rammed through so suddenly this week, but I suppose that I shouldn’t be.

I’d imagine as a group US Senators and Congressional Reps tend to favor cigars over cigarettes for themselves…I don’t think we need to look further than that for a reason they would be exempt under PACT.

I really don’t believe children are buying their cigs online, and I don’t believe online tobacco vendors are financing terrorists. I do believe it’s a conspiracy to create more crime, more unemployment, and more people to smoke.

I wonder how many customs and post offices etc are going to take this seriously or just how they plan to enforce this if cigars are allowed its not even like they can have ‘tobacco sniffing dogs’ and I wonder what the fine or penalty would be if someone is actually caught at having tobacco products delivered. in the meantime, I think maybe MrSnuff, Roderick and NicotineRush maybe better seriously consider adding the Stoker’s method of paper catalog and telephone access to their methods just in case websites are forced to come down.

Now all those poor little kids and terrorists (especially l’il kid terrorists) are going to have to make do with cigars.

exactly. I mean it’s illegal to copy music off the internet too. I say if it does pass lets focus on giving cancer too the people that voted for it. It probably won’t do anything but if it did we could certainly become the biggest pressure group ever. If you don’t subsidise snuff will give you all rashes. One thing this reminds me of is when I was a kid I never knew why cowardice was considered such a negative trait now that I’am older I really see cowardice as one of the big evil traits in humanity.

@bob they’ll just add us (and anyone experiencing nicotine withdrawals) to the terrorist groups list… didn’t you know that half of everybody (including US service veterans and soccer moms with political bumper stickers) are already on the terrorist lists? its almost to where if you haven’t been labeled a terrorist lately, you’re doing something wrong.

I’ve wondered if they think I’am a terrorist? Though I would never do anything to reduce sales of albums by the “Coup”. Why are people so insane? Seriously sometimes it’s hard for me to get worked up about this insane asylum called a planet we live on. Other times its really easy for me to get worked up. Though here is one I’am wondering why do people contiunaly think they can actualy control things on a real level??? If nothing has in billions of years why would someone be able to now??? Excluding God (I’am thinking libertine style God kind of a fill in the blank with divine head honcho of choice) of course.

cstokes wrote: "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. " Roderick that is a brilliant idea and I second it. I would add one more thing. Start selling e-gift cards (like Amazon). Thus I would go to your site and make my selection. Then I would get the total from my basket (including shipping). Next I purchase a e gift card for the ammount. Await the code to arrive via email. Then place my order using the code. This will head off the credit card companies and credit card processing companies who wish to stop tobacco transactions. No tobacco was sold via credit card. You might even develop that line of snus boxes you were talking about so that (with your hats and shirts and boxes) you can be listed as a gift shop.

Though if they did invade I’d sign up then defect immediatly. I’ll just need some secrets first. (just planning for as many out comes as I can.)

So if what you say is true then the cigar excemption must be to make it easier for congressionaly cuban sessions.

Roderick wrote “It’s pretty unlikely that the USA will invade the UK over a bit of snuff.” I dunno R, you make some pretty good snuff :>) Also I am going to copy your comment over to snuson. I think it is very important and worth hearing. I will of course give full credit to Roderick, Snuffhouse, and will also provide a link to this thread.

I promise I’ll not interfere with the magic snuff making elves. At least I’ll get to try my immitation of the queen at home on a real native.

Here is the link to my post over at snuson http://www.snuson.com/viewtopic.php?p=139043#139043

What is truly ludicrous about PACT is that, in the end, cigarettes will simply be reconfigured and reclassified as “little cigars” (most already have been) and it will be business as usual for the cigarette vendors. The “cigar” definition as worded in the PACT Act is a joke. The cigar exception ensures that a simple semantic shift doesn’t affect online “cigarette” sales. So then what remains? Really, only those few people who buy and sell pipe tobacco, nasal snuff and real Swedish snus are the ones who are going to suffer from this. Just how much tax can possibly be accrued from mail order pipe tobacco, Swedish snus and nasal snuff? (I can’t imagine that chewing tobacco and moist snuff users constitute a significant mail order demographic. That stuff is readily available at every gas station and convenience store on every street throughout the country.) I’d be surprised if the total combined snus and nasal snuff user base in the entire US is more than several thousand people. Pipe tobacco is itself a rather esoteric and specialized area in this day and age. It doesn’t take much to realize that PACT would cost more to “enforce” than the tax revenue it is supposed to bring in.

Makes me want to roll over and die. I don’t even have the energy to bitch.

Story of humanity. I bet the only advantage that way in tribal societies is your problem leaders were only a stones throw away.

yep, even us for circumventing both the pharamcutical AND the US tobacco industry oh AND health insurance for having found a cheaper safer (for everyone not just us but people around us no second hand smoke no fire hazards), alternative to smoking cigarettes probably renters and house and car and life insurance and everybody else is mad at us too since they can’t charge you extra smokers fees now. We’re terrorists alright.

The internet says it was passed unanimously with an amendment. Does anyone know what the amendment is?

If it has been ammended, it has to go back to the House. Since the bill they passed and the bill the senate passed have to be reconciled to be identical before they can be written as law.

* Roderick “I have reread the bill and there doesn’t appear to be a problem if US internet companies comply and put on the package ‘CIGARETTES/SMOKELESS TOBACCO: FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF ALL APPLICABLE EXCISE TAXES AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LICENSING AND TAX-STAMPING OBLIGATIONS’. May be Mrsnuff or NicotineRush can add further to this?” So, does this mean that when we buy snuff, we’ll have to tell the gov’t that we’ve bought it, fill out some kind of form, and pay taxes on it? (Sorry if that’s an obvious thing, I’ve only bought cigarettes before, and in the store you pay taxes and such when you buy them.)

Techncially you are suppose to declare to your state everything you ship in from out of the state. Its up to you to pay the appropriate taxes. Its always been that way. Its hard to enforce, though, as most people aren’t forthcomng about it.

Wow, I wonder what taxes I’ll have to pay if I declare the sofa I’m having delivered from VA next week. Upholstery tax? Carpetbagger tax? Hmmm.

I was reffering to tobacco.

I know. I was trying to make a funny and failed miserably. Sorry.

Michigan has a basic 6% tax on most things, which used to be at least, higher than a lot of states… I’m a little confused about this… Lets use the ‘driving over the border to buy cigarettes cheaper’ example that used to be (and people had to park backwards to hide their big blue Michigander plates because this was illegal and you could be stopped and… something happen to you if you were caught with a bunch of Indiana smokes in your car, I think it was more than two cartons) we were just forbid outright from buying more than 2 cartons over the state line and bringing them back. I don’t know anyone who was ever caught at this but everybody was always scared they would be and was always talk like someone just had or might be a cop sitting in the bar etc… the could have solved this by adjusting the taxes based on where we live I guess (like this PACT thing might be saying?) instead of just forbidding it (the thing I hope the PACT is not trying to do but I fear it might be) Lets put this in the mail order PACT concept then (but let me use the driving here to get at this): under PACT if I bought tobacco in Indiana I’d pay Indiana taxes right while standing at the cash register (whatever they are these days)… and then… driving over the border (or mailing), with this PACT< then I’d have to pay a whole complete second Michigan tax? or is it like when I have purchased things from another place online (also in Michigan) and you see “Michigan residents must pay Michigan sales tax” but I haven’t had to pay any taxes at all when I ordered from NON-Michigan places? How was the Michigan website able to automatically calculate the fact I also lived in Michigan and owed this? (they did, somehow, came up at check out, I suppose other websites could be set up to automate this the same way based on everyone’s addresses for everyone’s state) If that’s what they’re saying sure it would cost more and suck, but bottom line is if that’s it, then I could live with the idea of paying ONE state’s sales tax – either where its from or where I’m at, but just ONE of them please. That’s different than “thou shalt not ever just no way no how ever buy tobacco online nor have it delivered from any website whatsoever, be it any other state or country or your own” and I’m not clear just what this is saying since I see what appears to be talk about both issues. PS, buy yourself an out of state couch made made entirely out of woven tobacco plant matter or ‘tobacco rope’ (a la ‘hemp’) get it home grind it up and sniff it

Lol. I can imagine it now. The girfriend comes over “Honey, why are their holes in your couch?” Me (with a brown nose) “UH… no reason dear!” <_< >_>

i wonder if Northerner US Warehouse will be able to keep sending me dip ! Damn iam worried now

@whistlrr: Actually, Michigan sewed this up rather neatly by expressly forbidding internet, telephone, or mail order tobacco completely back in 2004, unless said retailer is licensed by the State of Michigan and affixes a Michigan tax stamp to the product and applies and remits all taxes (I know of no retailer who does this, although most any of them will cover their butts by stating that paying taxes is on you). It’s laughably unenforceable, but if you visit the michigan.gov website and look up tobacco laws, about the only way you can LEGALLY order tobacco is if you are a secondary wholesaler or retailer. There is a form you can download and fill out to pay taxes on mail-order purchases, but if your conscience gets the better of you beware: the fine print states that submitting this form is NOT a get-out-of-jail free card, more like an admission of guilt. You will be required to surrender the tobacco, pay the applicable taxes, as well as penalties (500% of tax). You could also face 5 years imprisonment and/or a $5000 fine, and if your vehicle was used to transport said tobacco (think those lovely cheap cartons from Michigan City, IN), it can be seized. Ordering from Roderick may work out ok (good thing I love Toque!), since PACT is an extension of the Jenkins Act of 1948 and applies strictly to interstate commerce, but ordering from NicRush or Mr. Snuff might just be a sticky wicket. I’ve no idea how much it costs to register as a licensed online retailer, but I imagine multiplying that by 50 states and I’m sure it’s gonna add up. Sigh…chalk up another victory for the posturing yobs in Congress who, once again, have trotted out the stale serenade of “Save the Children” in order to stick a red-hot poker in our collective bums. With all the infighting going on, I’m surprised they’ve been able to pass anything more than balloon juice lately. And now this. Errrkkkk.

wow. first I need to clarify it wasn’t tobacco stuff I was buying from the online michigan place (it was e-cigarette supplies, the parts and e-liquid which has nicotine in it but not tobacco)… one way to look at this I guess then is the upswing that leave it to Michigan to be the progressive place that it can be… and to be a forefront to showing how ‘well’ this sort of thing works… $5,000 and five years in prison (plus all that other stuff)? now learning this I’m a little jumpy about having run my mouth on here so much about where I live and where and what I buy (not because of you James S or anybody who’s participating here, I hope nobody’s looking who shouldn’t be if you get my drift) anybody could look up the city and such I said I live in, maybe I just USED to live there and now I don’t uhm… like I told Stefan/walrus1985 in another thread: I live in faerie land just left of Oz, everybody got that?

Since when has “For the people by the people” worked? Not for a long damned time that is for sure. We not only said no but a HELL NO! to TARP and that horse pile was rammed through the senate. We said NO! to PACT and that again was rammed through the senate. This wrings more money out of us to the point that we as a people should be near rioting about the excessive taxation with ZERO representation!

okay, lemme get this straight (trying again to understand and then make a summary here) of just what I think this PACT act means (I have read the CBO link given in the ‘are you ready?’ thread) so to me (and somebody come back and tell me where I’m wrong) it looks like we WILL still be able to get tobacco BUT we will have to pay taxes on it based on where we live (which state) and I’m thinking based on other things too such as comments by Roderick that it will be up to the sellers to include that (or should be or would be real nice and extra responsible of them if they did this for us to save both seller and buyer risks) and the post office isn’t supposed to deliver them (which means MrSnuff and NicotineRush will have to remove that option from their pages) but other ways, FedEX and UPS (the brown truck guys) DHL etc should I think sill be able to deliver them and it also looks like any laws such as say, the state of Michigan put out there in 2004 might (hopefully) be pre-empted by this federal one (which might be a good thing actually for Michiganders). they also plan to ‘inspect’ (I couldn’t realy see a good explanation for why on this only that they will) sellers like MrSnuff and NicotineRush so, they’re making it more of a hassle (more expensive both to buy and deliver) to legally buy and get things, but not impossible. EDIT – part of the reason I think we’re still going to be allowed but with a ton of stipulations is because of the very tax talk itself – it would make no sense to tax the bejebus out of something that you’re also at the same time trying to ban outright. How close am I? EDITING AGAIN — I really think I’ve got it, based on this summary found on this page: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/03/13/pact\\_snuffs/ The PACT Act will: * Require Internet sellers to pay all federal, state, local or Tribal tobacco taxes and affix tax stamps before delivery to any customer; * Mandate that the age and identification of purchasers be checked at purchase and at delivery; * Require Internet vendors to comply with state and local laws as if they were located in the same state as their customers; * Provide federal and state enforcement officials with new tools to block delivery of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products that evade federal or state laws; and * Ban the delivery of tobacco products through the U.S. mail. Gonna repost this over in the “are you ready” thread too I think.