Court rubs out Maine law regulating Internet tobacco sales[Supreme Court]

CNN ^ | 20 Feb 2008 | Bill Mears

[mr_hammer]

...flying pigs that is.

[Madame Dufarge]

I just re-read the article; and it seems that the decision related only to Maine's requirement placed on the carriers, not the taxing of internet sales.

The Jenkins Act covering taxation doesn't seem to be addressed at all, at least as reported in the article.

[patton]

Hmmm.

[Madame Dufarge]

The case was decided narrowly on federal preemption grounds, and the court did not discuss the Jenkins Act or arguments related to the dormant commerce clause.

[patton]

Well, that is starting to make more sense.

[Gabz]

Bump for morning coffee. I’ve got an eclipse to watch. ;)

I'm bumping for the same morning coffee.......not for the eclipse, too much cloud cover and too much snow...........expecting the 6am call that school is delayed or cancelled.........but hitting the sack either way!

[incredulous joe]

“they mount a Constitutional Amendment banning smoking and tobacco (which I believe they WILL do).”

They won’t do that because tobacco provides an easy revenue stream via sin taxes.

I don’t smoke, but they recently raised the tax here in Maryland to a level that would seem to have passed beyond the threshhold of tobacco addiction and has had the effect of having people either quit smoking or smuggle their cigs in from neighboring states (PA, WV VA and DE). I understand that one store in Harpers Ferry, WV has seen it’s sale of cigs spike with a 500% increase in the last few months.

Way to go Governor Dufus!!

At least one store chain that I know of in Maryland, Weggmans, has also quit on the sale of cigarettes altogether. Curiously, the store takes the high road on the issue, stating that they have stopped sales in the interest of public health, but everyone knows how cost-prohibitive the management of anti-theft of tobacco is in retail.

I do agree with your premise; if it is “so bad” the government should simply outlaw smoking, but I disagree with your prediction and outcome. They never will.

They’ll just make you feel really bad and evil for engaging in this nasty habit. Too bad this state doesn’t draw as hard a line for murderers, rapists and child molesters!

[incredulous joe]

“illegal for anybody under 18 to buy energy drinks”

Haven’t they got any crime to speak of up there??

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

I found this unbelieveable, especially being a unanimous decision. Of course, they still had to get their little digs in against smokers and ‘health hazards’ in some of the comments. But a win is a win.

[libertarian27]

Thanks for the Ping, now if they would reverse their Kelo decision, I’ll have more faith in the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

The eclipse was awesome; wish you had had a clear sky! I slept like a rock last night. Felt good!

Now...as for this article...it’s good news for those that want to enjoy an adult, LEGAL product while following the current rules.

I hate taxes. All taxes. But you already knew that, LOL! :)

Have a good day...I’m on the fly this morning.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I’m surprised that the 4 liberal SCOTUS justices ruled correctly. I would have thought they would throw out the law and rule based on the “greater good”. Good for them.

[EagleandLiberty]

“illegal for anybody under 18 to buy energy drinks” Haven’t they got any crime to speak of up there??

I guess they think that engery drinks and Tobacco (which are LEGAL PRODUCTS!) are more important than LOWERING PROPERTY TAXES (one reason I sold the family cottage on a nice lake), creating jobs and finding ENERGY.