Senate Bill 1147

[Leche]

Well this bill is awaiting Obama's signature now. The way I take it, any tobacco product, other than cigars will not be allowed to be mailed in the US. Maybe I'm over thinking this.

I do think this will effectively kill Swedish snus in the US. Few places carry real Swedish snus, and the prominent stuff like Camel is garbage. Getsnus and other online stores that don't carry cigars will go out of business. Hopefully the big razor companies will never lobby a bill to ban mail ordered shaving stuff.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1147

 

[mretzloff]

Do you smokers/non-smoking tobacco users order most of your stuff online?

 

[professorchaos]

Although I am typically a proponent of less government rather than more, as a former smoker I'd be happy to see the evil weed outlawed altogether.

 

[Follicle Genocide]

What about pipe tobacco?

 

[Commander Quan]

This does not include pipe tobacco...yet

 

[Leche]

Do you smokers/non-smoking tobacco users order most of your stuff online?

It depends Matt. For real Swedish snus there really is no other way. A few places, and I mean a few, carry a very limited amount of the General brand at high costs. So for variety, and for most in the states, the only way is online. For cigars it is definitely the cheapest way and the biggest variety is available. I don't know about roll your own, cigarettes, or pipe tobacco although I have found a lot of online stuff for the latter.

 

[Mazeman]

Do you smokers/non-smoking tobacco users order most of your stuff online?

I do. The local tobacconist has a so-so selection of cigars, and minimal pipe tobaccos.

Yes, how will this affect pipe tobacco?

 

[Mazeman]

Although I am typically a proponent of less government rather than more, as a former smoker I'd be happy to see the evil weed outlawed altogether.

So you are in favor of limiting personal freedoms.
This is usually done by government or their designees, so you may want to rethink your position

 

[Oklahoma]

Although I am typically a proponent of less government rather than more, as a former smoker I'd be happy to see the evil weed outlawed altogether.

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America. Does that mean the government should ban fast food joints and monitor what we eat? Think about it.

 

[Steppin' Razor]

I could be wrong, but after a cursory reading, the majority of the bill appears to be a series of revisions concerning regulations on taxation and record-keeping for tobacco retailers.

It seems that the bill would instruct USPS to refuse shipment on packages containing tobacco products from online tobacco retailers that do not comply with the new regulations, as well as outlining rather harsh penalties for non-compliance.

Seems to me that it'll be a headache for online tobacco retailers, but wont mean they are going to get shut down.

 

[rm71]

I almost read the thread title as senate bill 4711

 

[luvmysuper]

Although I am typically a proponent of less government rather than more, as a former smoker I'd be happy to see the evil weed outlawed altogether.

Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America. Does that mean the government should ban fast food joints and monitor what we eat? Think about it.

I seriously agree with a total ban.
I'd rather see that than the ***** footing around they are doing now.
It is bad for people. There is no social benefit from the sale of tobacco.
If it is such a horrible evil thing, affecting smokers and second hand smokers alike, which Government obviously believes to be true, why doesn't the Government just get rid of it?
Tobacco is a legal product and is sold as a legal product but is subjected to punitive taxation, promotion of social stigmatism, and the isolation and derision of smokers who are paying for SCHIP.
Just outlaw tobacco altogether and get it over with darn it.
Lost tax revenue can easily be recouped by increasing taxes on the sale of beer and liquor, fattening foods and products containing sugar.

 

[rickboone1]

Personally, I don't care because I am a non-smoker. I smoked for 15 years. That was enough.

And, yes there is that debate of where do we draw the line. FDA surely doesn't do a great job of regulating things to ensure our healthiness. But, say every fatty meat, every alcohol, tobacco, drug and anything bad was illegal to purchase and use/ consume. Would this prevent people from setting themselves on fire, cutting their own flesh to bits and drinking poisons? Hardly. You can't prevent everything laws or not.

I do find it funny that we are close to making pot legal and cigarettes illegal.

 

[thecoalition]

if it cut the allowance of mailing tobacco products i would be completely screwed. all the good hookah tobacco needs to be mail ordered unless i wanted to drive to california and back every few weeks.

 

[Geo Dude]

Although I am typically a proponent of less government rather than more, as a former smoker I'd be happy to see the evil weed outlawed altogether.

Not getting into arguments about whether or not it's wrong to not let people make their own decisions about addiction, since others can handle that, but let's be reasonable. This position is selfish, much like that of an alcoholic insisting that alcohol products should be banned because he or she cannot handle them. Yes, cigarettes do carry a high risk of both health problems and addiction, but pipes and cigars carry a high risk of neither of the above. (Emphasis on HIGH.) Hell, there have even been done studies done that showed increased life expectancy among pipe and cigar smokers due to the relaxation benefits gained from these. Naturally these studies are ignored now since they're not PC but they're out there and they are un-refuted to this day. The key, as with everything else, is moderation. It's simply a matter of picking a form of tobacco use that lends itself well to moderation, rather than one with a high addiction rate. It's not a case of tobacco being 'evil.'

That said, I wouldn't mind some reasonable accommodations such as forcing cigarette companies to take out the various chemicals they put into cigarettes that serve no function other than facilitating nicotine absorption and can be dangerous (ammonia, etc.). I also wouldn't mind encouragement of developing safer cigarettes, however, the government has consistently taken a dogmatic bent on this issue for the last thirty years and actually went out of their way to BAN from production any cigarettes that were meant to be mass-manufactured (i.e. non-RYOs) but had systems set up (such as a charcoal bit filter to absorb the tar and chemicals) to reduce the danger to a person smoking them on the grounds that rather than being cigarettes they're 'drug-delivery units' or something along those general lines, the drug being nicotine. The hypocrisy is astounding. What it amounts to is that the anti-smoking movement would rather see people dying in greater numbers from smoking than in lesser numbers with safer cigarettes, all in the name of stopping people from smoking. I personally find this morally repugnant. For those of you who don't understand this line of reasoning, in this particular context, I offer you the right-wing version of this behavior: There have been many cases where the right has argued AGAINST various things (vaccines, sex ed. programs, etc.) that would reduce the amount of STDs being spread about on the grounds that we need to teach people that sex is not safe, period, and even if people die because of our fanaticism and refusal to resort to damage control, so be it. The two forms of behavior are lead by the same mentality and are no different in practice.

For those who are interested, the Sullum's For Your Own Good while somewhat dated, covers the history of the anti-smoking movement in excruciating detail, including the decisions to ban safer cigarettes.

 

[Geo Dude]

And, yes there is that debate of where do we draw the line. FDA surely doesn't do a great job of regulating things to ensure our healthiness. But, say every fatty meat, every alcohol, tobacco, drug and anything bad was illegal to purchase and use/ consume. Would this prevent people from setting themselves on fire, cutting their own flesh to bits and drinking poisons? Hardly. You can't prevent everything laws or not.

What is more pertinent is that making all of these things illegal would NOT stop people from indulging in these acts if they so desired. It would just take it underground and set up a smuggling market for it which would result in some very, very nasty times. We learned this during Prohibition and Canada had the same problems when they decided to jump the taxes on cigarettes so much that one had to pretty much be rich to afford them consistently.

Lost tax revenue can easily be recouped by increasing taxes on the sale of beer and liquor, fattening foods and products containing sugar.

The problem with this reasoning is that it fails to take into account that the government are greedy bastards and want to bleed the public for as much tax money as is possible without it resulting in their being kicked out of office (or an overthrow of the government). They don't want to recoup tax money from tobacco with those products. They want to tax all of that in addition to tobacco so they get extra money instead of having to recoup it.

 

[Geo Dude]

Do you smokers/non-smoking tobacco users order most of your stuff online?

I grab most of my cigars at the B&M simply because I'm more of a casual cigar smoker these days than a cigar nut and thus don't buy enough cigars to concern myself with cheaper online prices, etc. The local B&Ms also have a good selection of cigars. I do, however, buy the vast majority of my pipe tobacco online simply because A. There is a much larger variety of pipe tobacco online and it typically tends to be of higher quality than the house blends at the local B&M and 2. It is significantly cheaper.

 

[professorchaos]

So you are in favor of limiting personal freedoms.
This is usually done by government or their designees, so you may want to rethink your position

Inconsistent, I know. What can I say? I am an addict. But if the government is going intrude in my life and tell me how many gallons per flush my toilet can use, SOX and ban tritium flashlights...well you know where this train of thought is going. (Probably right off the rails.)

 

[luvmysuper]

The problem with this reasoning is that it fails to take into account that the government are greedy bastards and want to bleed the public for as much tax money as is possible without it resulting in their being kicked out of office (or an overthrow of the government). They don't want to recoup tax money from tobacco with those products. They want to tax all of that in addition to tobacco so they get extra money instead of having to recoup it.

My point exactly.

If one method of taxation fails, the taxes won't go away - something else will be taxed more.

Watch for the penalty tax for folks who don't get enough physical exercise. It's a coming my friend.

 

[norton]

Well this bill is awaiting Obama's signature now. The way I take it, any tobacco product, other than cigars will not be allowed to be mailed in the US. Maybe I'm over thinking this.

I do think this will effectively kill Swedish snus in the US. Few places carry real Swedish snus, and the prominent stuff like Camel is garbage. Getsnus and other online stores that don't carry cigars will go out of business. Hopefully the big razor companies will never lobby a bill to ban mail ordered shaving stuff.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1147

I thought GetSnus uses UPS.