When is a loophole not a loophole?

[nameshy]

I wonder if anyone has tried smoking role-your-own tobacco

in a pipe and found it suitable.

 

[igloo]

Most roll your own baccy is not worth smoking . Half and Half is good , Criss Cross are two exceptions .Many of the old RYO brands have gone to expanded tobacco aka paper bags and chemicals . I make my own cigarettes and the way I do it is blend my own . It is not cheap but then again it is additive free .

 

[cortezattic]

The only RYO I've ever tried was in the mid-1960's, and that was Bull Durham -- which looked like dried fish food flakes and came in a little cloth sack with a yellow drawstring. It was pretty good tasting, but I couldn't get the hang of rolling (my grandpa did his whole life -- and without glued paper! It just hung together with spit; and he could do it drunk.) I suppose rolling machines have been around a long time, but they weren't all that common because a pack of "tailor-mades" like Lucky Strike and Camel were just 25¢ as recently as 1964.

 

[nameshy]

I'm disappointed in the first two responses. I'm talking only about smoking roll-your-own tobacco IN A PIPE. The question is relevant to the Tax Parity Act, which is designed to make pipe tobacco responsible for criminal mislabeling of roll-your-own tobacco.

 

[chuckw]

I tried it once and that was it Brother.

I take that back. I tried 5 Bros. too.

 

[admin]

I haven't tried it myself. Maybe you want to try it yourself and let us know what you think? That's one way to find out for sure.

 

[nameshy]

I'm afraid my own results would be too obviously biased. But if we can't find even one person who finds it suitable, and thousands who don't, this would help the people at the FDA who are currently actually working on making a distinction that will lead in one of two directions - one of which will be a disaster for pipe smokers and the industry. The word "suitable" is key, because that's the word the government used when it made the original distinction. It's part of the law.
This could turn out to be at least as important as writing to our "representatives".

 

[igloo]

Like the government gives two f....s what the people want . We wrote our representitives and those that got a response were all computer generated . The tax will pass and create another black market ,see cuban cigars . So I will continue to smoke someone on welfare is depending on me . As for the FDA they are a bunch of over paid morons , doing endless tax wasting studies .Some people are slow learners see prohabition . I quess I should go load up some juniper bark for my pipe , or maybe carpet shavings with sweet vanilla . Pass the coolaid .

 

[nameshy]

When the issue was in the House Ways and Means Committee it hadn't yet reached most of your representatives. But it was still a political issue. Some of us wrote persuasively to the Committee and others made direct contacts. The bill was left to die.
The FDA is part of a different branch of the government. Now it requires a "scientific" decision, which means that the argument needs to be evidence-based.
Within the framework of the government's own definition, the best evidence may be that roll-your-own tobacco is not suitable for smoking in a pipe.

 

[nameshy]

I'm going outside the box to think for a moment before the loophole becomes a noose. If I ring a bell with the right person and that leads to something more, that's my only objective.
The government has focused on the need for physical characteristics to distinguish between pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco for tax purposes.
It's not always ideal to isolate physical characteristics from activity. For example, a political candidate may excel in physical charm and promise no new taxes and right after being elected raise tobacco taxes.
Trying to differentiate pipe tobacco and RYO tobacco as inert objects separated from how they work in action can also be misleading. For example, pipe tobacco is almost impossible to inhale while RYO can be inhaled with ease. A difference such as this doesn't help in this particular context, but working back from the activity to the inert state is possibly what everyone is currently attempting to do on all aspects of the differences. It's really impressive to see their progress.
When the original statutory definitions were first established a lot of deliberation must have taken place before the idea of suitability was settled on. Seeing their discussion notes - through the Freedom of Information Act if in no other way - might be helpful.

 

[admin]

nameshy, did you see the latest information we have published here?
What do you think of this?
Pipe Tobacco vs. Roll-Your-Own - What's the Definition?

 

[smokingtoport]

I don't think anything to do with tobacco would get a fair hearing today.If someone discovered tobacco plants healed the ozone and made unicorns dance they would be harassed until they repented,and would never find funding again,period.To be anti-tobacco has become a religion to some,even to atheists.In a free nation it comes down to choice.I try very hard to respect peoples freedoms,even if I am not too thrilled with their choices.I like smoke free zones,I respect smoke free zones,but smoke free cigar bars????All I ask is to be left to my quiet enjoyment.That speech now over,I think the only people who profit from high taxes on any consumer goods ,are smugglers and corrupt officials,and that truly is as old and as universal as sin.This to shall pass.Thanks to all those who read and let me vent.We're all in this together.

 

[nameshy]

Kevin,
I thought your presentation was very good. I was a little surprised to see you say that currently the only government definition for pipe tobacco and RYO tobacco is based on the labeling. See 26 U.S.C. 5702(n) and 26 U.S.C. 5702(o).

 

[admin]

I have read that:

(n) Pipe tobacco

The term "pipe tobacco" means any tobacco which, because of its

appearance, type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and

likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco to

be smoked in a pipe.

(o) Roll-your-own tobacco

The term "roll-your-own tobacco" means any tobacco which, because

of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for

use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as

tobacco for making cigarettes or cigars, or for use as wrappers

thereof.

Basically if you say it's pipe tobacco, then it is pipe tobacco. The point is that the current definition is too subjective and therefore of no use with the current problem.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... even if it's wearing a duck costume, then it is a duck. That was my point.

 

[nameshy]

I'm glad you agree that a current definition exists. It was because of that definition that I thought it might be helpful to learn what other alternatives the government considered before settling on the word "suitable".

 

[cortezattic]

What is your opinion of my idea to ignore tobacco characteristics entirely, and simply tax rolling paper at a commensurate rate?

 

[nameshy]

Cortezattic,
I think the best we can hope for is that the experts in this area can find the physical characteristics that RYO share with cigarettes as contrasted to the physical characteristics that are unique to pipe tobacco.

 

[nameshy]

Can the loophole turn out to be just a smoke ring?
Has anyone been able to discover any physical characteristics that would account for why pipe tobacco is almost impossible to inhale, while RYO tobacco can be inhaled with the same ease as a cigarette?