I don't order cigarettes online, but my husband does order his cigars that way and a signature is always required.
There are a variety of services (depending) where you can get signatures (for 18+ or 21+), but they’re generally considered to be a pain in the butt.
They usually charge extra for the service – which is about the only way they could make a second delivery attempt and still make money – but there are other issues. Do you just let someone sign because they “look” over 18? If no, what sort of ID is acceptable and how do you record it, how do you prove it after the fact, and how do you detect if it (ID) is fraudulent? How long do you retain those records to cover your butt when some mom starts raising hell because her kid has been ordering (whatever) and is only 17 (or 20)?
Then there’s the other problem. Quite often (for "regular" delivery) packages are left in a safe (hopefully) place if nobody answers the door. But in this instance a signature is *required.* Something like 83% of residential packages requiring a signature cannot be delivered the first time because nobody answers the door. They require a second or third delivery attempt. That’s why there are usually surcharges associated with their delivery.
Once the second attempt is made, it is usually a money-loser. The third attempt you make is on your own dime (percentage-wise – not always). By the time you’ve attempted to deliver it the third time and return it to the shipper you’re losing money on it for sure.
And remember – every time you double or triple-handle something (or end up having to return it to the shipper) it increases the possibility that it’ll disappear into the clear blue sky or get smashed flat – that increases the chance you’ll end up paying loss or damage claims to the shipper.
Just pointing out that it’s a bunch of issues – it’s not just a cigarette thing or a Spitzer thing. It was a pain in the butt on a good day anyway and Spitzer is just making it a not-so-good day.
You can apply the same principles to many other areas of business. It’s just one reason companies doing business in America find it increasingly attractive to do business elsewhere.
All the more reason that the "for the children" excuse is BS. I don't smoke but I have a real problem with the slippery slope aspects of this agreement.
Remember that ruling that supposedly enabled mail order wine sales between states? Well, look for Spitzer to protect the NY wine industry (Hillary will protect their whine industry) by banning shipments of adult beverages because children could use them to obtain booze. What good is the ruling if you cannot get product shipped? What would be the difference between smokes and drinks following Spitzer's logic?