New Proposed Bill Seeks to Eliminate Online Tobacco Sales

[chuckyeageronlsd]

Just because they use those things to justify their illegitimate attack on my personal choice, it does not make it just. Last I checked, I had to pay my medical bills. Society really means crap to me when it comes to personal choices. The war on tobacco did not come from the electorate. It came from rich busybodies who funded decades long smear campaigns and injected propaganda into the mass media to control the opinion of the electorate. I have no problem making sure that I don't get ripped off, believe it or not, it still happens even with government oversight. In fact the government is the reason they are getting ripped off on excise taxes. Had they not effectively forced so many B&Ms into closure they would still be collecting their extorted gains through that route and this would essentially be a non issue. I only resorted to online purchasing because of the closure of local B&Ms, and I'm sure many others have for the same reason. If voting isn't going to work I'm afraid we're going to have to go with that other v word.

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

They're trying to be my nanny, I don't want a nanny, I want to smoke.

 

[warren]

No one is interfering with your choice to smoke. It is not prohibited. You and I made the choice to smoke. But, it is a choice, not a right, certain restrictions and obligations come with the choice, just like getting a driver's license. There are consequences that come with the choice to smoke. Taxes and the "slings and arrows" of society are only a part of what we face.
When I started smoking, sixty years ago, I knew it wasn't going to get cheaper as the years went on. I also knew society was starting to take smoking related illnesses and the attendant costs seriously. My mother was a founding member of the "American Cancer Society" in Alaska back in the fifties. Bless her heart and rest her soul, she was a caring lady.
I choose to enjoy my smoking and not give a thought to what society thinks or to the costs. I've weighed the risks and rewards. I can readily afford the increasing costs. I wouldn't have a problem if tobacco usage were to be suddenly banned though. I'd take my increased disposable income and find something else I enjoyed, model trains for instance. Neither smoking nor pipes are necessary for me to live an enjoyable life.
And voting is working! You're just not getting your way. You and I are in a tiny, tiny minority. And, I'm not a supporter of smoking "per se." I am somewhat selfish though and feed the need for nicotine all the waking hours of the day. Smoking, as a political issue, simply isn't that important to me in the grand scheme of life. It's a little pleasure but, not a necessary one.

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

Even if the pro tobacco people are in the minority that is irrelevant. It is widely recognized that minority oppression by the majority is wrong and was a danger the fore fathers didn't take lightly. While taxes may not be a ban de jure, I think in many cases that it could be argued that it is progressing into a de facto prohibition. By doing this to online sales they are effectively denying me access to choices on the free market. I would, and I mean would in the literal sense, compromise and say this. If they want taxes online, fine. Find a way to collect just as they have done with sales tax, it's obviously not that hard. Keeping it out of the hands of minors is fine as well, as others have mentioned we have technologies such as skype. But to say that they are going to outright ban sales online is essentially moving towards a de facto prohibition. However, they don't want you to smoke period. They do not want a compromise, even though smokers and the like have been compromising for decades. They want to subject you to their psychopathic will. Like I said, I would compromise, but for this reason I refuse to compromise and so should others. They view you as property and they don't want you to damage company property by smoking. Judging by many of their attitudes were not far from requiring a tax stamp to possess and requiring possession to obtain a tax stamp.
While it can be argued that the taxes raised are for the extra medical expense of smokers it's not a very effective argument. Very rarely do those funds go to actual medical expenses. They are largely misappropriated into other funds as the government sees fit. Do we get to tax obese people too?

 

[Chasing Embers]

Tobacco is a want and not a need. If looked at from a pursuit of happiness angle, it is looked at as infringing upon non users pursuit of happiness. The world wide popular opinion of tobacco is negative and pro tobacco groups and individuals are quickly losing ground. Argue all we want, majority rules especially over an unnecessary commodity like tobacco.

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

It may be looked at that way, however what I do alone in the privacy of my own home does not infringe on anybody. They are infringing on my pursuit. No disrespect intended embers but that seems to be a defeatist attitude to me, and I do not intend to go quietly without a fight to these uptight busybodies who think that they have they right to impose moral control through varies government means.

 

[sablebrush52]

I thought this was America. You know that place founded by a bunch of long haired pipe smokers who hated taxes and big government.

They didn't hate taxes, they hated taxes imposed by a foreign government to fund foreign needs, no taxation without representation.
The Founding Fathers were also among the wealthiest land owning elite who didn't believe that the common people should have the same rights as they had. Some of them, quite frankly, didn't like the idea of a democracy as it potentially put too much power in the hands of people who they felt were too ill equipped to handle it. Wealth was equated with wisdom and virtue. If you weren't wealthy there was clearly something lacking in your character. So I have no problem with the country having strayed from the original intent of some of the Founders.
Complain all you want, but the course is pretty well set. We might have had more B&M's if people had chosen to support them rather than running to online stores for the cheapest price.
And Embers' point is a good one. Can you keep your smoke to yourself without encumbering others who may not wish to partake of it by being in proximity?

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

Yes I can, assuming they do not invite themselves onto my 10 acre property. I don't smoke in public. I made that concession, yet you give them an inch and they take a mile. If people do not like smoke, they need not come to my property.
While it's hard to argue that online stores have an advantage, I don't think they would have had the same advantage without subjugating regulations and nanny laws.

 

[ashdigger]

You must have a bunker with a basement. Your argument is with the wrong folks. Social norms change and commerce changes and legislation changes.
It's adapt or die time.

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

I would rather die for liberation than live in subjugation.

 

[warren]

uptight busybodies who think that they have they right to impose moral control through varies government means.

Your logic is very convoluted. At least I can't follow it. There is no "moral" argument, that's a real stretch, involved in the right or wrong of tobacco use. It's a purely selfish choice which can harm others and the smoker. If you desire total freedom from the regs and laws, grow your own tobacco, make your pipes and smoke in isolation where you are not harming others. To do otherwise means you are depending on various government supports to continue to acquire blends, pipes etc. I feel a breeze. Are you simply "blowing smoke" up my kilt.
If you feel so strongly, run for office, appeal to others for support, get elected and change the regs.

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

I mean in a way I am appealing to others for support, if there's not support for smoking among fellow smokers what hope have we? As I said, I do not smoke in public and if someone doesn't like smoking they can see themselves off my property, so who am I hurting other than myself? For people to say that my smoking hurts other people passes a judgement of morality on my activity and using this logic to pass laws to regulate or frustrate my smoking becomes a morality law. The biggest moral argument is this "should someone have the right to frustrate or prohibit my activity if in doing that activity, smoking, it does not harm another?" My belief is no, no one has that right. We will have to agree to disagree on a great many things. And although I disagree with you I wouldn't go so far as to say your logic is very convoluted.

 

[warren]

Nothing is prohibiting you or anyone else of age from smoking. But, don't look to me to support your choice. I think smoking is simply a bad choice. One I made years ago, well informed. I expect no other to support me in my poor choice. I neither want nor solicit the support of others for the poor choices I've made in life.
If your complaint is based on the taxes and other out of pocket costs you need to earn more money or quit smoking. If it's based on the so called "moralists" as you refer to the anti-tobacco crowd ... suck it up, it ain't gonna get any better. But, again I don't see a moral/immoral side to the debate. Though, depending on what one's religion may be self-harm could be a sin.

 

[chuckyeageronlsd]

Not yet, but if this bill passes it essentially attempts to by limiting my accessibility. They are trying to kill the industry, but maybe that will be a good thing. I hear the black market is good money. Tax free. That's what they will create.

 

[Chasing Embers]

No disrespect intended embers but that seems to be a defeatist attitude

You're asking to fight a battle that was lost decades ago. The world has got it in its head that tobacco causes all ills. The only way you could make any forward movement with tobacco is to prove it is a viable fuel source or a cure for cancer. We're hanging onto the fringes of a dying market where the majority of the populace sees tobacco as a bad thing. You're not granted the right to smoke but for the time being, although limited, it's still a privilege.

 

[bent1]

Wonder if the feds could be sued for interfering with the right to life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness?

 

[ashdigger]

Wonder if the feds could be sued for interfering with the right to life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness?

It would be helpful to read the Constitution. From the Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The short answer is no, but I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn.
BTW, I'm no believer in big government and my favorite holiday is April 19th, but they do have the power to regulate items with results you don't agree with. Go to the ballot box.

 

[Chasing Embers]

Wonder if the feds could be sued for interfering with the right to life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness?

Again, that would imply having those things without infringing on the same for others.
Life- popular opinion: tobacco is bad for life
Liberty- free to do what you want as long as it causes other no harm: second hand smoke
Pursuit of Happiness- antis aren't terribly happy around tobacco users.

 

[brian64]

I never understood why they bothered including the 9th and 10th amendments since the "general welfare" clause apparently trumps everything.
"Promote the general Welfare" ... the scariest phrase in the English language.

 

[warren]

Interestingly, the 10th is beginning to show up more in arguments in front of the "Vestal Virgins of the Potomac."