Posted on 08/08/2006 5:32:31 AM PDT by SheLion
Senator Susan Collins introduced legislation on Aug. 3 to help crack down on illegal sales of tobacco to children by banning the shipment of cigarettes and other tobacco products through the U.S. mail.
Specifically, the bill would add cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to the U.S. Postal Service's list of restricted, non-mailable products. A first violation of mailing such a product would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 or 10 times the estimated retail value of the tobacco products, including all federal, state, and local taxes, whichever is highest. Civil penalties of up to $100,000 would be imposed for each subsequent violation.
The Senate went into recess on August 4.
This is not the first action taken against Internet sellers of cigarettes.
In January Philip Morris USA reached an agreement with a coalition of 37 Attorneys General aimed at combating the sale of the company’s cigarettes over the Internet and through the mails. In addition, in March 2005, the Attorneys Generals also announced that the major credit card companies had all agreed to stop processing credit card payments for the Internet retailers. And, later in the year, both DHL and UPS agreed to stop shipping packages for the vendors engaged in these illegal sales.
The USPS has continued to ship cigarettes because under postal law packages are sealed against inspection unless there is probable cause, according to USPS spokesman Gerry McKiernan
In September 2005, the agency adopted a formal policy recognizing that it cannot knowingly permit mail to be used to further activities deemed unlawful by state and federal authorities. As a result, the agency currently makes it illegal to mail alcoholic beverages and guns.
However, the USPS policy authorizes postal employees to accept packages suspected of containing untaxed or under-taxed cigarettes because, there could be souvenirs in the package. However, “its pretty obvious if it’s a gun, don’t you think,” asked Mr. McKiernan.
If enacted, McKiernan, “we will comply, but we hope guidance will be offered on how we can effectively enforce this legislation.”
Sen. Collins said Internet sales of tobacco are growing, but effective safeguards against illegal sales to young people are virtually non- existent on the more than 400 websites selling tobacco, making it easier and cheaper for kids to buy cigarettes.
She added that the delivery of cigarettes and other tobacco products through the mail creates opportunities for tax evasion.
Collins said that 20 percent of cigarette-selling Websites do not say anything about sales to minors being prohibited and more than half require only that the buyer say they are of legal age. Another 15 percent require that the buyer type in their date of birth and only 7 percent require any drivers license information.
Collins said Internet "stings" conducted by Attorneys General in at least 15 states found that children as young as 9-years-old are able to purchase cigarettes easily. Moreover, since Internet cigarette vendors typically require a two-carton minimum purchase, many high school and middle school buyers of Internet tobacco also end up serving as suppliers of cigarettes to other kids.
In March, Senator Charles E. Schumer, D-NY, and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced that they had teamed up to support legislation to stop the shipment of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco through the U.S. Mail.
Schumer said his bill would prohibit mailing cigarettes through the USPS, impose fines of at least $1,000 per offense and jail time for repeat offenders, and give state Attorneys General the ability to pursue those who ship tobacco in violation of the law.
The bill has not yet been introduced.
I guess it is just you and me and that is an intolerable situation.
They have a ban on selling tobacco to minors, and that law is not being enforced.
I'm am 100% against collecting taxes from out of state vendors. Congress has tried to pass other bills like that lately, and I have been against them, and if that's a provision of this bill I'll opppose that too.
I'm not so naive not to think that there are foul intentions invovled (i.e. more tax revenue). However, it's been my experience that liberals look at "intentions" whereas conservatives are only concerned about results.
This has more to do with state's rights than anything else. A state has the right to pass whatever laws they want, provided they don't violate the constitution (like gun control laws do), and we should not allow out-of-state companies to circumvent those laws.
Also, supporting one policy does not imply support of another. I would be against raising state cigarette taxes any further (and would support lowering them).
"They have a ban on selling tobacco to minors, and that law is not being enforced. "
Ok. How is an out of state vendor supposed to know that the card holder is a minor?
That information is NOT included with the card.
It is the parents responsibility to make sure their 'minor' children are not committing an offense by checking what they are doing.
And I don't want to hear about 'childrens right to privacy'.
If they are minors living at home, they have NO right to privacy.
You cannot put the blame on the vendors for not having information they are not entitled to in the first place.
I would venture to say you could get far more than 30 plants in one of those babies.
Re: Sen. Collins Introduces Legislation To Stop Tobacco
Shipments Through the Mail
From harpu | 08/08/2006 7:14:19 AM PDT replied
"Is there a point to all your nit-picking?"
Yes, there is ASS****, I'm looking for a link so I use the information lobby and raise money in my eCommerce community to stop this kind of shit.
Next time, mind your own fu***ng business or find me a working link like 'SheLion' finally did - you POS!
Either FR is really slow, there's not too many people here, or FR is about to crash soon. The, "All of the above," link won't refresh and hasn't for the last 5+ minutes.
Nevermind. I was on, "Threads," instead of, "Messages."
Maine, a haven for liberalism.
"They can't determine that, and they have a responsibility to under the law."
That makes absolutely no sense.
If they can't determine what age the cardholder is, then there is no 'responsiblity under the law'.
The law doesn' require you to research someones background to make a sale, unless the person is buys 'in person'.
A credit does not list the age of anyone. The only people that know your age is your banker or credit card company and they are not allowed to give out personal information without your permission.
Your point seems to be that since they can't 'determine' what the age of the cardholder is, then they shouldn't make any sales?
I'm glad I'm not in business with you, because the company would be broke in no time flat.
The neo-logic these days, which nobody questions is that if anything can possibly be abused or misused, the entire process or service must be shutdown.
Unfortunately...
I understand.
I can't justify the cost of one at this point in time, but hopefully next year.........
Thanks for the ping!
It is indeed an intolerable act.
Fact: All fifty states have laws concerning the legal age to form a contract. None of them allows an age lower than 18. Credit card agreementsw are contracts. No credit cards are issued to minors, since they are uncollectable. It is a PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY to monitor what a child buys, not the friggin' gum't!
Fact: Nanny statists abound on the FR message boartds, and some try to disguise themselves by calling themself a libertarian...
I agree and the smokers should be more upfront about it instead of hiding behind such rethoric that the government is going for a power grab.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.