Washington State Is Not Messing Around- Online Retailer Fined $65,000
- Thread starter Akousticplyr
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Seems fair. Break the law, pay the penalty. It's not like the Washington State ban on internet sales is something new and unknown.
Where's the ACLU on this??? I am betting no effin' where. Won't touch it, the hypocrites.
Is it bad that I’m wondering what the AG did with all the tobacco they ordered...?
The west coast loves these odd rules and regulations as they all fall in line with them every time they go to the voting booth; seems like self flagellation
Last edited:
The ACLU has not been inactive in the area of tobacco rights as evidenced by this letter to a senator concerning legislation overly restricting advertising on free speech grounds
ACLU LETTER TO SENATE ON THE FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
We are writing on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) toexpress our concern over the advertising restrictions contained in S. 982, TheFamily Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (hereinafter the ‘2009Tobacco Control Bill’). The ACLU is America’s largest and oldest civil libertiesorganization, having over half a million members, countless additional activistsand supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide. We last commented on the issue oftobacco advertising regulation when S. 2626, the Youth Smoking Prevention andPublic Health Protection Act of 2002 (hereinafter the ‘2002 Youth SmokingBill’), was introduced during the 107th Congress. As in 2002, we continue tobelieve that the advertising restrictions in this year’s bill are not drawn narrowlyto achieve the stated public purpose and, as such, fail to comply with the freespeech protections of the First Amendment. In the absence of a much moresubstantial narrowing of the advertising restrictions in a manner directly tied tothe goal of reducing youth smoking, we urge the removal of the advertisingrestrictions set forth in Section 102 of the bill. It is our understanding that such anamendment is likely to be offered when the bill comes to the floor forconsideration and we urge you to support it.
You can read the full text here:
ACLU Letter to Senate on The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act | American Civil Liberties Union
We are writing on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) toexpress our concern over the advertising restrictions contained in S. 982, TheFamily Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (hereinafter the ‘2009Tobacco Control Bill’). The ACLU is America’s largest and oldest civil...
www.aclu.org
Unfortunately the feds and states are constitutionally and statutorily entitled to regulate interstate and intrastate commerce so there are no constitutional civil liberty grounds to contest the regulations
I can't say I'm surprised. I just hope they don't go after the customers they shipped to.
Actually, so far as I know the states do not have the right to regulate interstate commerce. That was one of the reasons the Constitution was written and regulation is restricted to the Feds.
Commerce clause, provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) that authorizes Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” The commerce clause has traditionally been interpreted both as a grant of positive authority to Congress and as an implied prohibition of state laws and regulations that interfere with or discriminate against interstate commerce (the so-called “dormant” commerce clause). In its positive interpretation the clause serves as the legal foundation of much of the government’s regulatory power.
Commerce clause, provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) that authorizes Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” The commerce clause has traditionally been interpreted both as a grant of positive authority to Congress and as an implied prohibition of state laws and regulations that interfere with or discriminate against interstate commerce (the so-called “dormant” commerce clause). In its positive interpretation the clause serves as the legal foundation of much of the government’s regulatory power.
All states have their peculiarities. Mississippi allows marriage at the age of 15 without parental consent. Massachusetts figures parents can marry off their kids at age 12 and New Hampshire at age 13. Child marriage is legal in a number of states, California, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Mississippi, West Virginia Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maine.
Look at the laws of any state and you will find objectionable legalities.
Under the Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
Which means that Washington can impose such interstate commerce regulations as it deems necessary or desirable so long is they do not conflict with those regulations reserved to the Federal Government under the Constitution.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
Which means that Washington can impose such interstate commerce regulations as it deems necessary or desirable so long is they do not conflict with those regulations reserved to the Federal Government under the Constitution.
In what way? The retailer knew the rules and chose to violate them. I'm not seeing how anyone could defend their behavior.
Not to speak for someone else, but I took his post as ‘one state sales ban at a time’ until all 50 are reached or there’s a federal ban.
I agree, they broke the rules. Apparently the AG office had ‘undercover’ online sales orders.
I think the moral of the story is ‘keep cellaring while you can”
I didn't say they were "objectionable" just odd. It seems like if there is a problem with underage smoking, then require an e-verify system for the customers...it's used all the time...universities use it all the time when taking exams for some online courses. Also, comparing underage marriage to underage smoking is odd in itself.
The Feds ran a sting operation in Southern Nevada concerning Native American “pottery shards” an off road ATV operator used as a “heritage display”
By the time it was all over the owner/operator was fined $75,000 and had to take a “cultural awareness” class.
All told the investigators took 7 fully paid group ATV rides to “verify” the shards. The cost to taxpayers was 1.5 million in investigation expenses. The judge verbally reprimanded the Feds for wasting money.
But they got him. Lol.
By the time it was all over the owner/operator was fined $75,000 and had to take a “cultural awareness” class.
All told the investigators took 7 fully paid group ATV rides to “verify” the shards. The cost to taxpayers was 1.5 million in investigation expenses. The judge verbally reprimanded the Feds for wasting money.
But they got him. Lol.
I'm not comparing. I'm simply pointing out that all states have some elements in their laws that others might find objectionable. You were making a generalized statement about the left coast that is not supported by anything other than your personal opinion.
LOL, again, putting words in my mouth...I never used the phrase "left coast".
Despite the "United" States terminology the regions of the US are very disparate in their politics and morals. Very disparate!
- Status