I posted this here back in December on this thread. You want to follow the letter of the law? Let’s adhere to the PACT bill’s laughably generous definition of “cigar.” Wrap the snuff in a cigar leaf or “in any substance containing tobacco” and you’ve got a cigar. It’s as simple as that, law abiders. [quote] PACT: ‘(B) EXCEPTION- The term ‘cigarette’ does not include a cigar (as defined in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). Here is that definition: (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 meaning of subsection (b)(2)). http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal\_Revenue\_Code:Sec.\_5702.\_Definitions Once again, wrap powdered tobacco “in leaf tobacco or in any substance containing tobacco” and you are selling and shipping a “cigar”. It is not a “cigarette”; it is not not “snuff” — it is a “cigar.” That is according to the letter of the law.[/quote]
well… that might work for Roderick’s products (he’s in charge of his own packaging and has the N Rustica and as a perk we could always grind up the tobacco ‘container’ for still more snuff) but when you’re talking about retailers for already known snuffs that retailers don’t have control over the packaging (and that’s nearly everything else, Rooster to WoS etc) that might not be so easy unless you’re asking MrSnuff to remove each of them from their containers and repackage them and then he’s probably asking for trouble from the manufacturers otherwise, and much as I would love to see MrSnuff carry more grindables (like an N Rustica of his own for example) unfortunately, I don’t think wrapping a big leaf around a can of rooster is really gonna cut it
I did not write that one should wrap a leaf around a can of Rooster. I wrote that ground tobacco rolled into a cigar leaf wrapper or in “any substance containing tobacco” (think “little cigars”) is by (the PACT Act’s) definition, a “cigar.”
well I guess I still don’t understand. I don’t know much about cigars, haven’t even seen that many of them close up but I figure they’re not powder to begin with and its going to be a real trick to get snuff to stay in a cigar… that is what you are talking about right? if not, can you give some examples of how you have in mind this could be done? and how do we solve the problem of so many snuffs by so many manufacturers… if you didn’t mean wrapping a leaf around a can of rooster, what do you mean (for all the OTHER snuffs like this)? I’m not trying to pick on you, in fact its the other, I think there is a potential for an idea here (and it IS an idea which is better than no ideas, and all ideas should be discussed and considered and given some weight because we’re looking at a few major problems and thinking and finding ways to deal with itreally might be all we’ve got, otherwise we just sit and get screwed and know we never even tried) so,how?
it doens’t make any specifications for what isn’t in a cigar. for example a tin of snuff.
Cigars are a giant tobacco leaf with a ‘filler’ made out of different blends of tobacco, and sometimes flavourings and spices or what have you, and sometimes mixed with a ‘binder’ that keeps it all compact together so it doesn’t come tumbling out when you cut the smoking end of the cigar. The leaf is either hand or machine rolled so that it’s closed on both sides, which is why you have to cut one end or punch a hole in it to have a place to smoke it from. Here is a good picture of a bundle of Cigars. So, really, all you would have to do is stuff your snuff into a leaf wrapper, and then close both ends. Voilla, a snuff cigar that won’t dump snuff anywhere. It could also probably come with a complementary empty tin, or smashbox, or whatever so when you cut the cigar and dump out the snuff you have something to put it in so that it doesn’t dry out. Just a thought.
well I don’t know, Bob, is a tin of snuff “any roll of tobacco”? about now I am getting a Cheech & Chong image at the notion of, at the request of some pesky goverment official having someone (probably a deer-in-headlights retailer like MrSnuff) in their captive audience ordering a demonstration of actually smoking that ‘cigar’…
(sigh) We are only concerned with the definitions and language as specified by the PACT act. Leave the discussion of leaf cut, binders, hand-or-machine made, cutting techniques and fillers to cigar enthusiasts. It matters not one whit with regard to the topic at hand. Once again, here is what the PACT bill states: [quote]‘(B) EXCEPTION- The term ‘cigarette’ does not include a cigar (as defined in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).[/quote] And here is the definition of “cigar” as defined in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: [quote]b 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 meaning of subsection (b)(2)).[/b] [url]http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal\_Revenue\_Code:Sec.\_5702.\_Definitions[/url][/quote] This is why those filtered “little cigars” that look, taste and smoke suspiciously like a cigarette are legally classified as cigars and not as cigarettes. They consist of a roll of tobacco wrapped in a substance containing tobacco leaf. It doesn’t matter that its wrapper is mainly low-grade paper with a wee bit of reconstituted tobacco added to the pulp. It meets the federally defined criterion of a “cigar,” and that is why it can be sold and taxed as such. And that is why a pack of 20 of the things are so damn cheap: because they are taxed as cigars and not at the exorbitant cigarette tax rate. My subjective aesthetic opinion would be that Wilsons of Sharrow Brunswick packed into a King Edward wrapper would undoubtedly make for an awful smoking experience, but it’s still a cigar, according to the federal guidelines. But the federal guidelines say noting about smoking your cigars. Smoke ten simultaneously or shove 16 of them up your ass. Whatever. The IRS definition does not dictate how you are to consume them. Until it does, that is up to you. Hell, I think a King Edward is an awful cigar, but it doesn’t matter what I think. According to Section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a King Edward is a cigar, and that is all that matters here.
@kjoerup I wasn’t discussing any of that. I was simply telling her why it would be feasable to pack a wrapper with snuff and call it a cigar without it falling apart. Sorry for dragging the discussion off topic.
Well, you can hire a chimpanzee to wrap Rooster badly in tobacco substance-fortified toilet paper and the final, crappy product will meet the IRS definition of “cigar.” Nothing in the definition states that a cigar has to be a “well made” cigar. Just saying.
okay, yes, I admit my mind wandered there a bit with the cheech and chong up in smoke thing (sorrysorry!) maybe we should run this by the US resellers here I am also wondering just what percentage of snuff sales are actually through the internet as opposed to physical stores, if its a big enough portion of sales maybe the manufacturers would be interested in changing their packages (afterall, look at the conwood ones that already come in cardboard that is rolled (look inside there you can see it just like the inside of a paper towel or toilet paper roll) how hard would it be to add a percent of tobacco to that paper, or maybe even would the paper labeling at least on american scotches do? maybe somebody should be talking to the manufacturers?
There is nothing to “run by” the snuff vendors. They and their consulting attorneys know best how to run their business. I think all of this is moot, and the snuff vendors do not need to waste their time on cigar semantics. The Senate version of PACT is essentially toothless and if that is the version that is signed into law (if indeed PACT is signed into law at all), the internet resellers have nothing to worry about. PACT was designed to put a damper on Indian tribe cigarette sales, and was asking that the federal government step in and pay for that. The Senate revision wisely threw it back to the states. The revised PACT is now going to have to be negotiated in the House. The difference between the House and Senate versions is quite substantial, and PACT may very well simply die in Committee. We shall see. Regardless, the Senate revision to PACT made one thing abundantly clear: the federal government will not get the US district courts or the Department of Justice involved in PACT enforcement, nor will they allocate money for enforcement agencies. Money talks – and this is the crux of the matter. If nothing else, a lot of people following the PACT saga are receiving a much needed civics lesson. If the snus forum is any indication, it is extraordinary to learn how many American adults have such a vague or nonexistent grasp on how law is made in the USA.
^^_it is extraordinary to learn how many American adults have such a vague or nonexistent grasp on how law is made in the USA._My understanding is that it is made exactly the same way as sausages.
you mean it’s ground up and cased in an intestine. Yup that would be a pretty accurate picture.
and its not pretty what goes into it.
And you should definatly wash your hands when you’re done with it too.
More like its chewed up,passed through an intestine and the end result is dumped upon the public. Because its for our own good whether we know it or not. And we should all be thankful we have these highly intelligent (well compared to us of course) elected officials looking out for our best interests!
“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.”— Mark Twain