Cigarettes up to $7.00 a pack!

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Yeah, what is the deal with cartons? Do they run like $50, or what?

[Guest DrTom]

Just saw this article...

 

 

Online smoking sales choking states

By Margaret Kane

Special to ZDNet News

August 14, 2002, 7:49 AM PT

URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-949750.html

Online sales of cigarettes could be costing states millions of dollars in unpaid taxes, according to a new report.

 

Almost all states charge taxes on the sale of cigarettes, but the issue has come to the fore as municipalities such as New York City and other locales raise taxes to close budget gaps.

 

As with many other products, one of the attractions of purchasing cigarettes online has been the avoidance of those taxes. A report from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, pointed to a Forrester Research study that predicts Internet tobacco sales in the United States will exceed $5 billion in 2005 and the states will lose about $1.4 billion in tax revenue from these sales.

 

But, as with sales taxes, although consumers aren't charged the excise tax by the vendor when they purchase the item, they are still responsible for remitting it to their home state. In the case of cigarettes, a 1949 federal law known as the Jenkins Act requires dealers who ship cigarettes across state lines to people other than a licensed distributor to report the sale to the buyer's home state, so that state can collect excise tax.

 

Only 5 percent of the Internet retailers surveyed posted notices of their responsibilities under the Jenkins Act, although those that did stated that they didn't comply with it, according to the GAO. And many Internet retailers even stated on their Web sites that they did not have to comply with the Jenkins Act, 16 percent of these citing their Native American status, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and other laws as reasons for not complying with the act.

 

"However, our review of the laws cited, as well as the Jenkins Act and its legislative history, indicates that neither Native American status nor any of the laws cited relieve Internet vendors of their Jenkins Act responsibilities," the GAO report states.

 

Enforcement of the Jenkins Act is technically the purview of the Justice Department and the FBI. However, prosecution has been limited. The GAO found only three federal investigations involving such potential violations, and none of these had resulted in prosecution.

 

"No Internet cigarette vendors had been penalized for violating the act, nor had any penalties been sought for violators," the report said.

 

To beef up enforcement, the GAO recommended that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which currently has some jurisdiction to enforce the Act, be given primary jurisdiction. That would also help ease the FBI's burden as it tries to fight terrorism, the GAO report said.

 

In addition, all of the agencies involved thought the act might be more easily enforced if violations under it were upgraded to felonies from misdemeanors.

 

The ATF is already working on ways to increase enforcement, the report said, including asking tobacco manufacturers to help determine who is selling cigarettes to Internet and mail order companies.

 

Some states are trying to enforce the Act on their own. Of the nine states surveyed by the GAO, California had the most success in collecting taxes, taking in about $1.4 million in between 1997 and 2001. But the state received information from only 20 out of 167 online cigarette retailers, and responses from 13,500 of the 23,500 residents subsequently notified of their tax responsibilities.

 

"Officials in the nine states said that they lack the legal authority to successfully address this problem on their own. They believe greater federal action is needed, particularly because of their concern that Internet cigarette sales will continue to increase with a growing and substantial negative effect on tax revenues," the report said.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Honestly, I almost wish them luck. This is like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the hill; it would be comical if it weren't so pathetic.

[Guest Some Guy]

I get mine from Switzerland and the ATF will have a hard time stopping that. The Boston Globe had a short piece about the state trying to stop it. Our moron Governor who ok'ed the tax increase here was whining about people robbing the state of tax revenue. Maybe, just maybe they should have thought of that before increasing the price 75 cents a pack.

[Guest J*ingus]

It's simple economics, don't the idiots get it? If you run McDonalds and you double the price of all your burgers for no good reason, people are just going to go across the street to Burger King instead. Don't be a prick and insist that Burger King has to raise their prices too.

[Guest EricMM]

No no no, what they would do is try to make Burger King ILLEGAL, or charge Burger King for THEIR burgers too...

 

But noone will try to stop this because it's "just" cigarettes.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Warning. This will resemble a manifesto more than a reply. I'm just reading all these posts and replying where I see fit:

 

To a man: What if the governmetn put a $3 tax hike on your morning coffee? I don't drink it, it's bad for you, and you could just quit.

 

This affects other people how? I don't have to worry that I might breathe in anyone's Second-Hand Coffee in the air. =b Meanwhile, your smoking could be doing more damage to my lungs than to yours.

 

"Polluting [your] fucking air?" How the fuck am I doing that from the privacy of my own flat, you fucking jackass? Must be one hell of a crosswind.

 

Don't complain then when you enter an area that bans all smoking in bars & restaurants (California), or if your area attempts to do the same (such as what is happening in New York.)

 

Of course, that didn't stop the federal government from ass-raping the tobacco industry to the tune of half a trillion dollars.

 

That's because the tobacco industry has been trying for decades to be as quiet as possible about the effects of smoking. Sure, now we're seeing "Tobacco is Whacko if You're a Teen" or whatever the fuck, but where was that in the eighties? Where was that in the seventies? Why the Joe Camel cartoons? Why the glorification of smoking?

 

Should the government tax fatty foods because they cause people to have heart attacks?

 

Again, I'm not forced to share the burger you're eating.

 

But if you're sitting in a smoking area, or you're in your own house, or you're smoking in the middle of a park with no one around for miles, and you're dumb enough to buy a pack from from a shop which pays the sales tax, you're getting penalised for no reason at all. Or does EVERY smoker in California directly pollute your fucking air?

 

There's nothing illegal about it. If you don't like it, go get addicted to something else. You do not need to smoke to live! It is a luxury. The only closest exception is marijuana medically perscribed to numb pain. Luxuries can be taxed.

 

It makes sense, you're in a tube with mostly recycled air, but the lawsuits by stewardesses are bullshit. They took the job knowing that there would be smoking on the planes and knowing that smoking or second hand smoke is bad for you and if they didn;t know that then they have been living under a rock for the last 50 years.

 

Except that they're exposed to it each and every day and it's a KNOWN HEALTH RISK. An airline can't just put "By signing here, you understand that this job will probably give you Lung Cancer" on a contract. Even if they did, it would only mean nobody would do it.

 

I think there should be a smoking and non-smoking section in restaurants, I pay just as much as everybody else and as such I should be able to enjoy myself just as much.

 

What prevents you from just doing it outside? Other people don't want to breathe that.

 

In an unbiased mind, I think restaurants should make the decision up for themselves. However, as a person who HATES cigarettes, I'll admit that I enjoy a 100% smoke-free restaurant as much as you'd love a restaurant that doesn't bug you for smoking. =b

 

The other hypocritical argument about from non-smokers is that it hurts their enjoyment of whatever they're doing. Well what about smoker's enjoyment? I guess that doesn't count.

 

There's a flaw in your logic here, but I can't put a finger on it. I'm not faced with this kind of statement in the smoking debates I get into, as my Dad smokes but doesn't enjoy it and wishes he could quit.

 

I don't really know, it just seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

 

.....

[Guest jimmy no nose]

The other hypocritical argument about from non-smokers is that it hurts their enjoyment of whatever they're doing. Well what about smoker's enjoyment? I guess that doesn't count.

 

There's a flaw in your logic here, but I can't put a finger on it. I'm not faced with this kind of statement in the smoking debates I get into, as my Dad smokes but doesn't enjoy it and wishes he could quit.

I guess an argument you could use is that the non-smoker is forced to risk his health without doing anything wrong and have his enjoyment hurt, while the smoker not smoking hurts his enjoyment maybe, but not his and others around him's health. But I don't mind people around me smoking because I've put up with it regularly my whole life and I occasionally smoke, but not in situations where a non-smoker would be angered or whatever, just with my friends in a private place or whatever.

[Guest J*ingus]

I think there should be a smoking and non-smoking section in restaurants, I pay just as much as everybody else and as such I should be able to enjoy myself just as much.

 

What prevents you from just doing it outside? Other people don't want to breathe that.

 

In an unbiased mind, I think restaurants should make the decision up for themselves. However, as a person who HATES cigarettes, I'll admit that I enjoy a 100% smoke-free restaurant as much as you'd love a restaurant that doesn't bug you for smoking. =b

If you're in the non-smoking section of a restaraunt, how on earth could you be breathing in cigarette smoke? And don't say something like "sometimes I'm right next to the smoking section", that's the fault of boneheaded building plans and you can ask not to be seated there anyway.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

If you're in the non-smoking section of a restaraunt, how on earth could you be breathing in cigarette smoke? And don't say something like "sometimes I'm right next to the smoking section"

Okay. Then how about this? Air drifts. Especially stale restaurant air.

[Guest EricMM]

You are not going to get cancer from sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant.

 

You are much more likely to die from driving your car. MUCH MORE LIKELY. I don't smoke but people act like they're going to fall to the floor and die because they breathe some second hand smoke occasionally. It's not going to kill you. It can be gross, but generally I find that unless I'm sitting next to the actual smoke it doesn't bother me one bit. Maybe I'm thick skinned in that regard

 

You people make non-smokers look like bitches and I'm a non-smoker!

 

What the hell do you do at shows/bars/parties? Fall on the floor gagging?

 

I'm sorry if I offend you, and being concerned with smoke at home is WAY different but 2nd hand smoke from someone you're seeing maybe weekly is a bit redicolous IMO (IMO of course sigh)

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm willing to accept that secondhand cigarette smoke can harm infants and very young children. It does not in any way increase cancer risks for adults. You inhale FAR more pollutants and carcinogens just walking down the street for half an hour than you would if someone blew cigarette smoke directly into your face for the entire day. No one's putting your health at risk by smoking next to you. The most you can say is "It smells bad," and that's a matter of opinion. I happen to think that fat women who douse themselves with two gallons of cheap perfume smell much worse, but that doesn't mean I want to make them illegal. Okay, maybe I do, but anyway.

 

Incidentally, using California as an example doesn't do much to bolster your argument. 1100 bars have gone out of business since they instituted their idiotic laws. There's a reason it's called the most clueless state in the Union.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Marney, I'm actually with you on this one, in that I doubt second-hand smoke is all that terrible. But I was wondering about this little bit:

 

"You inhale FAR more pollutants and carcinogens just walking down the street for half an hour than you would if someone blew cigarette smoke directly into your face for the entire day."

 

Do you have something to back that up on? Because, unless you're in an industrial area, I doubt the air is all that toxic, whereas second-hand smoke does have some chemical traces and whatnot. I mean, in the course of a normal day, you're probably right, but if someone's blowing smoke in your face all day, I could see that irritating your thoat, if nothing else. Just wondering...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I was just thinking about the carbon monoxide fumes from cars &c, not industrial pollutants. Most of the harmful things in cigarette smoke go straight into the smoker's lungs and stay there. Secondhand tobacco smoke may irritate someone's throat, and some people might be allergic to it, but it won't cause a normal, healthy adult any lasting damage.

[Guest goodhelmet]

i've read the debates and the only thing i have to say is... move to Texas!!! our cigarettes are still under $3 for the most part!

[Guest Some Guy]

QUOTE  

Of course, that didn't stop the federal government from ass-raping the tobacco industry to the tune of half a trillion dollars.

 

 

That's because the tobacco industry has been trying for decades to be as quiet as possible about the effects of smoking. Sure, now we're seeing "Tobacco is Whacko if You're a Teen" or whatever the fuck, but where was that in the eighties? Where was that in the seventies? Why the Joe Camel cartoons? Why the glorification of smoking?

 

QUOTE  

It makes sense, you're in a tube with mostly recycled air, but the lawsuits by stewardesses are bullshit. They took the job knowing that there would be smoking on the planes and knowing that smoking or second hand smoke is bad for you and if they didn;t know that then they have been living under a rock for the last 50 years.

 

 

Except that they're exposed to it each and every day and it's a KNOWN HEALTH RISK. An airline can't just put "By signing here, you understand that this job will probably give you Lung Cancer" on a contract. Even if they did, it would only mean nobody would do it.

 

You've just answered your own question. If the cigarette companies volunteered the info about Cigarettes fewer people would smoke, causing them to go out of business.

 

QUOTE  

I think there should be a smoking and non-smoking section in restaurants, I pay just as much as everybody else and as such I should be able to enjoy myself just as much.

 

 

What prevents you from just doing it outside? Other people don't want to breathe that.

 

In an unbiased mind, I think restaurants should make the decision up for themselves. However, as a person who HATES cigarettes, I'll admit that I enjoy a 100% smoke-free restaurant as much as you'd love a restaurant that doesn't bug you for smoking. =b

 

What prevents you from just going outside when I light a Cigarette? Oh yeah, you're more important than a lowly smoker.

 

QUOTE  

The other hypocritical argument about from non-smokers is that it hurts their enjoyment of whatever they're doing. Well what about smoker's enjoyment? I guess that doesn't count.

 

 

There's a flaw in your logic here, but I can't put a finger on it. I'm not faced with this kind of statement in the smoking debates I get into, as my Dad smokes but doesn't enjoy it and wishes he could quit.  

 

Where's the flaw in my logic? Just because you have never even considered that a smoker is an actual person just like you who enjoys doing certain things doesn't mean it's not true. I guess I'm too logical for you, considering your argumant boils doen to, "I don't like so you shouldn't do it and if you do you should be reamed by the government for it."

[Guest swan]

Actually can someone tell me why the govt. can tax cigs more than anything else?

 

Because scumbag smokers need to pay extra for polluting my fucking air.

And raising my health insurance premiumns

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I think that the risks of second-hand smoke are greatly exaggerated, but I still hate being around smokers. I find it disgusting when I'm just trying to walk to class, and have smokers in front of me blowing smoke in my face. So, if the government wants to take advantage of what I consider to be a disgusting habit, that's fine with me. It's hard for me to have too much sympathy for smokers when they started smoking knowing that smoking was both expensive and addictive.

 

My only concern with the higher tax is that it might end up backfiring if they go too far. Make it too high and less people will start smoking, and current smokers will buy their cigs online. If they go too far, they may end up bringing in less money than they were before.

 

<<<Where's the flaw in my logic? Just because you have never even considered that a smoker is an actual person just like you who enjoys doing certain things doesn't mean it's not true. I guess I'm too logical for you, considering your argumant boils doen to, "I don't like so you shouldn't do it and if you do you should be reamed by the government for it.">>>

 

Druggies are actual people too, but I don't see too many people lobbying for it to be okay to snort coke in restaurants just because it's convenient to the crack whores. Sacrificing the convenience of the minority for the convenience of the majority happens all the time.

[Guest EricMM]

I find it disgusting when I'm just trying to walk to class, and have smokers in front of me blowing smoke in my face.

 

I'm sorry. But does this actually happen on a regular basis? As far as I know, the only place on campuses people are allowed to smoke would be outside. If you're outside, you'd have to be appreciably close to someone to inhale their smoke. Granted you'll smell it. But I don't like the smell of mulch either, and it doesn't benefit me, but it's not worth bickering over...

 

So, if the government wants to take advantage of what I consider to be a disgusting habit, that's fine with me. It's hard for me to have too much sympathy for smokers when they started smoking knowing that smoking was both expensive and addictive.

 

I agree to a point, and that's why I don't smoke. Among a few other reasons. But you know a lot of things have been Ok'd by the majority because the majority would not be effected. That doesn't make it ok. Turning smokers from people into pariahs isn't the same level as slavery for example, but everyone deserves the right to eat in peace, and if it's 25 degrees out I wouldn't want a smoker to either be 1) niccing 2) going outside to smoke.

[Guest bob_barron]

When I walked home from school people were always smoking and stuff and it bothered the hell out of me

[Guest KoR Fungus]

<<<I'm sorry. But does this actually happen on a regular basis? As far as I know, the only place on campuses people are allowed to smoke would be outside. If you're outside, you'd have to be appreciably close to someone to inhale their smoke. >>>

 

Yeah, it really does. I don't know how Maryland is, but at PSU it's really crowded between classes, and if the person walking in front of you is smoking, you just have to breath it in during the entire walk to your next class. Not pleasant.

 

<<<Turning smokers from people into pariahs isn't the same level as slavery for example, but everyone deserves the right to eat in peace, and if it's 25 degrees out I wouldn't want a smoker to either be 1) niccing 2) going outside to smoke.>>>

 

I'm not saying that we should turn smokers into pariahs, but I think that the concerns of non-smokers should come first, since there's so many more of them. If people want to adopt a habit that they know is addictive and that they know disgusts many people, they can live with the consequences of that decision. One of those consequences is being cold if they want to smoke in the winter. Yeah I feel moderately sorry for them too, but what do you suggest instead? Smoking inside, filling the poorly ventilated dorms up with smoke? I think not. I'd much rather them be cold.

[Guest bob_barron]

Pretty much what KORFungus said

[Guest JHawk]

I'll clarify this rant by stating I'm a non-smoker.

 

It's not taxes on cigarettes that bother me, it's the hypocrisy of them.

 

I'll use Cleveland as an example. They raised the price of cigarettes to help build Jacobs Field and Gund Arena...and then they tell you "You can only smoke in these areas...and by the way, you can't see the game from them." Smokers paid for the damn building, let them smoke whereever the hell they want to. I suppose it's understandable at an enclosed arena like Gund Arena, but Jacobs Field is outdoors.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

A little late in my reply, but point taken about CO from cars and such. Hadn't thought of it.

 

"Yeah, it really does. I don't know how Maryland is, but at PSU it's really crowded between classes, and if the person walking in front of you is smoking, you just have to breath it in during the entire walk to your next class. Not pleasant."

 

Same thing happens at Marquette, and it's even a smaller school. Happens to me personally all the time. It isn't pleasant....but I don't think it's grounds enough for a tax hike (not that anyone said it was).

[Guest Some Guy]

At school the only time I smoke where many non-smokers would be around is when it's raining. The only places at the entire college with overhangs to prevent me from getting soaked are in front of doors, if the school took some of the money that they get from my tax money and built a few bus stop like structures for smokers then I would go there, but they won't. Blame the schools, they are aware of the issues and refuse to do anything about them.

 

Here's another ridiculous smokeing story. In Lexington, Mass (Of Revolutionary War fame) they outlawed smoking in all buildings, both public and private. While I question the legality of of a town outlawing in a building that they don;t own or operate, the method they went about it is even more questionable. Rather than putting the ban on a ballot and risk losing they had the Board of Heath decree the new law. I thought we lived in a Democracy, guess not.

So a company in Lexington noticed that their employees who used to be able to smoke in their offices were going outside to smoke a lot and it was inhibitng their work. They were also getting rained and snowed on, so the company nicelt built the smokers a few shelters so they wouldn't get soaked. Well that was apparently too good for the lowly smokers and some asshole complained to the Board of Heath who declared that the shelters built specifically for smokers were buildings and as such could not be smoked in. The company had to tear them down.

This is beyond crazy. The town causes a problem a compnay tries to help fix it and then the town comes back and refuses to allow the smokers the ability to even stay dry.

 

JHawk the thing about the arenas is stupid, but at least people get to smoke in them. I pais $55 to got ot Fenway and I can't smoke anywhere in the park and you can't leave and come back. So the park has forced hundreds of people to smoke in the bathrooms which aren't suffient for the park anyway.

[Guest bob_barron]

No one ever forced you guys to start smoking in the first place so I can't say I feel too sorry

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No one wants your precious sympathy, jackass. Just leave law-abiding citizens alone.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I agree that Some Guy's story definitely shows that anti-smoking people can go way too far. I don't mind taxing cigs, but smokers should still be able to smoke if it doesn't hurt others. Shelters for smokers are an ideal solution, it lets them smoke out of the rain/cold without hurting anyone. I don't know why anyone would be against them...

[Guest J*ingus]

I do, it would be the same people who want to ban all cigarettes, alcohol, firearms, and fatty foods; i.e., the idiots who assume that everyone ELSE is an idiot and thus must be legislated in order not to hurt themselves.

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

Good. Jack up the prices some more, and hopefully we'll eliminate some of the smoking habit around America. I find it DISGUSTING, as do most non-smokers.