State ban against online cigarette sales begins today

TheJournalNews.com ^ | June 18, 2003 | ALLAN DRURY

[Just another Joe]

New Yorkers who have been dodging the state's sales tax on cigarettes by buying their cigarettes online lose that right today due to a law that was passed in 2000 but has been bottled up in litigation.

The law, which is still being challenged by pro-tobacco interests, prohibits the delivery of cigarettes purchased over the Internet to a consumer in this state and specifically targets Internet sales. A violation is a class A misdemeanor and can bring a jail sentence of up to a year.

[Just another Joe]

They've done this a few times before though and have been shot down by the SCOTUS.

Hopefully they will get shot down this time also.

[Great_Dame]

So how about those enterprising on-line merchants selling somethign else and including a FREE carton of smokes with each purchase of Indian beads or whatever...its the selling of the smokes that is against the law, not the shipping...look for the loopholes

[Just another Joe]

its the selling of the smokes that is against the law, not the shipping

Are you sure about that?
The way I read this article, it's not the selling, it's the shipping into NY state that's against the law.

[Dont Mention the War]

I don't know the actual answer in law, but I would bet that it would become like buying liquor in the District of Columbia and bringing it into Virginia (where all hard liquor is sold through state ABC stores). What happens is that State liquor control agents stake out popular outlets in DC and if you buy more than a certain quantity, they follow you back into Virginia and cite/arrest you. Happy little police state.

This won't work in New York. The NY Nazis (I don't remember if they were NYC or NYS) already tried this tactic a while back with people that were driving over into New Jersey in order to buy - get this - CLOTHING. (Clothing is subject to sales tax in both NYC and NYS, but not in NJ, so a lot of people do most of their clothes shopping in Jersey malls.) They actually followed people into places like Nordstrom's and then arrested them the moment they reentered New York, because it is actually ILLEGAL to buy clothing out-of-state.

Anyway, once New Jersey learned about this, they sent their state police out to follow the NY police spies, and made it very clear that if NY didn't stop it immediately, all NY cops would be arrested and jailed the moment they entered NJ.

Needless to say, that little tactic did indeed stop immediately.

[Myrddin]

Can you make a phone call and purchase the cigarettes with a verbal transaction and credit card number? That isn't the internet. Did the politicians cover that alternative? If you purchased from another state in that fashion, it would be interference with interstate commerce to prohibit such a purchase.

[Calpernia]

That is not what I understood from Square Trade. I will look into it further. Thanks for the insight.

[Calpernia]

Even personal purchase?

[rottweiller_inc]

I see an opprotunity for the formation of third party shipping companies to fulfill a smokers needs online.

[Calpernia]

Oh and how would I know whether the consumer is going to declare?

For the example in this forum, the topic is cigs. So, the issue is the consumer declaring. How would it be my responsibility as a retailer to know whether the purchaser intends to declare an item?

[Calpernia]

Good point. Now that isn't selling. So how does that fit in? Or is that shipping?

[Just another Joe]

Even personal purchase?

I would expect so.

[VRWC_minion]

Told you so (again)

Roll your own will be next on shopping block.

[Just another Joe]

Can you make a phone call and purchase the cigarettes with a verbal transaction and credit card number?

I don't know but even if this were the case I don't think it's the purchase, it's the shipping into the state, and maybe even shipping into the state to a personal consumer.
Otherwise how would the tobacco companies be able to ship to the stores?

[Just another Joe]

Told you so (again)

You didn't tell me anything about this.
This isn't even about smoking or smoking bans so get off your high horse you reformed whore, I mean, smoker.
This is, simply put so even you can understand, about a state trying to tax something bought outside it's borders and putting the onus on a shipping company for doing what it was contracted to do.

[VRWC_minion]

Sales of tobbaco are tracked from the source to the user. As a licensed dealer you will be required to demonstrate where your shipments went.

[Just another Joe]

Roll your own will be next on shopping block.

And at that point I start my own hydroponics tobacco growing section in my house and keep right on going.
Just to spite you, the nico-nazis, and the state government if nothing else.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I can't see how this is not a violation of the constitutional control by the feds of interstate commerce and it should be shot down.

However, what is to prevent the antis from setting up stings of delivery to minors then suing the sellers? A few big judgments would probably achieve their goal and there would be some.

[VRWC_minion]

But, contrary to what others are saying here, I get the impression it's not the carriers' responsibility; it's the retailers'.

I once researched this tax on cigs. Apparently it applies to the cigs once they cross the border and are applicable to anyone who is in possesion of them. That is why the carriers would be liable for the tax.

[Protagoras]

How can they ban sales over the Net? That does NOT seem right!

They have the guns, they can do what they want. Get used to it. It's only going to go from bad to worse.

[VRWC_minion]

You didn't tell me anything about this.

I said the nontaxable ways of aquiring cigs would be shut down when the smokers used it to claim the increase in taxes won't work. In addition, the neighboring states will increase also.