Oh I GOT em. hehe Just rolled a fresh batch.
Posted on 02/12/2005 2:20:01 PM PST by SheLion
Concerned about the booming trade in online cigarette sales, New York state officials have begun using a variety of techniques to clamp down on the trade, saying New York City alone is losing more than $75 million a year in uncollected tax revenues because of the sales.
In recent weeks, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has been pushing local postal officials and private carriers to stop delivering cigarettes bought online. His office has also recently begun negotiations with credit card companies to block transactions of online cigarettes.
These efforts were given added push recently as local officials from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives met with credit card executives to alert them to the various ways in which these transactions are illegal.
"The tone was very cordial and unthreatening," said a city official who participated in the presentation three weeks ago at the bureau's office in Brooklyn. "But in the end they made it crystal clear that now that the credit card companies understood the law, they would be held accountable for processing these transactions."
Mr. Spitzer emphasized that the effort has as much to do with health as money. "These sales present a significant threat to public health because they provide easy access to cheap cigarettes, which increases smoking rates, particularly among children," he said. "These illegal sales also evade state tax requirements."
Whatever their motivation, city and state officials are broadening their efforts to eradicate the business.
Two weeks ago, a judge ruled in one of the city's four lawsuits against online sellers that the city can file a revised racketeering lawsuit against Internet cigarette sellers. The ruling was the first time a federal judge has indicated that Internet sellers can be charged under federal racketeering law, said Eric Proshansky, the city's chief lawyer on the case.
After gleaning the names and the addresses from a Virginia lawsuit against one online cigarette company, the city began sending letters last month to more than 2,600 New Yorkers who officials say bought tax-free cigarettes. The letters, sent to those who bought cigarettes online from July 2002 to April 2004, give the alleged violators 30 days to pay or face interest and penalties of up to $200 a carton.
In November, local law enforcement seized 300,000 cartons of illegal cigarettes at Kennedy International Airport. Joseph G. Green, a spokesman for the A.T.F., said that the seizure was the culmination of a yearlong investigation jointly conducted by the Queens district attorney's office; federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; postal inspectors; and city and state tax and finance officials.
Sam Miller, a spokesman for the city's Department of Finance, said that the city loses more than $75 million a year as people duck local taxes by purchasing online. But the crackdown has drawn some criticism.
"New York is simply trying to engage in economic protectionism by limiting cigarette sales to brick-and-mortar sellers," said James L. Bikoff, a lawyer who represents several Internet tobacco sellers. "Most of the folks who are in the online cigarette business are small outfits and they typically advise the consumer to check with their own city and state's laws regarding tax rules."
New York City smokers pay the highest cigarette taxes in the country, as the state charges a $1.50 tax per pack and the city adds an additional $1.50 tax per pack. A carton of cigarettes in the city costs about $70, including $33.30 in excise and sales taxes. Online, cigarettes cost as little as $15 a carton.
Thus far, the city and the state have met with mixed results in their efforts to control the online traffic in cigarettes.
Some banks that process MasterCard transactions have begun blocking sales from certain Internet tobacco sites to customers, said Joshua Peirez, a senior vice president at MasterCard. But other banks do not. American Express currently has no policy that blocks Internet cigarette sales, said Christine Elliott, a spokeswoman for the company.
After sending a letter to credit card executives in August, Mr. Spitzer joined several other state attorneys general to send another letter pressing credit card companies to stop the transactions.
Both letters cited several reasons for the failure of Internet tobacco sellers to comply with applicable laws, including that they make no effort to verify the age of their customers and fail to report shipment of cigarettes to the tobacco tax administrator of the state into which shipments are made.
While the United Parcel Service and other private carriers have been more open to the idea of blocking the delivery of these packages, postal officials have balked at pressure from Mr. Spitzer's office, claiming that they do not have the legal authority to stop the shipments, according to city officials who have been part of the discussions. But Mr. Spitzer's office contends that the postal service indeed has the authority under federal laws that prohibit mail fraud schemes, according to a letter sent by the office.
New York State passed a law that took effect in 2003 prohibiting online and mail-order sales of cigarettes to its residents. The law was largely intended to curb tax evasion and under-age smoking, since many online cigarette sites do virtually nothing to verify the age of customers.
Efforts to stop online sales are complicated, since Internet sites are sometimes based abroad and are therefore difficult to prosecute. City officials estimate that about 80 percent of the online cigarette sales come from sites that claim Indian affiliation, which for sovereignty reasons claim immunity from laws like the Jenkins Act.
This is nuts, if true. If states don't have federal authority to block interstate commerce, then what Spitzer is doing is unconstitutional. State and local officials can be prevented from enforcing these sorts of unconstitutional laws via suits in federal court, can't they? Are there any such suits in the works that you know of? And where the heck is Congress on this anyway?
From the article:
His office has also recently begun negotiations with credit card companies to block transactions of online cigarettes. These efforts were given added push recently as local officials from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives met with credit card executives to alert them to the various ways in which these transactions are illegal.
What various ways are the transactions illegal? I don't follow this subject much, so pardon my ignorance.
I'm about to read your link now. Thanks.
Me thinks I'll take you up on that suggestion Neets!
SL, please tell me that you are not serious in this comment.
When someone encounters opposition on a thread, they just pick up their marbles and go home??
Firebrand is a good and decent conservative herself. Just like you don't like flaming, neither do other good and decent conservatives.
Oh I GOT em. hehe Just rolled a fresh batch.
Ease off on Congress my lady, for after the strain of voting themselves a pay raise, nostrils have to be picked.
How many packs of cigarettes are in a carton? (I honestly don't know, and I'm curious.)
10 packs.
Today I paid $45 for a carton of Newports.
I don't smoke, but I grew up with a smoker (my dad), and I went on to spend six evenings a week for nearly twenty years singing in nightclubs where the smoke was so thick it was difficult to see through it half the time.
And guess what. I'm fine. Perfectly fine.
If anyone is going to "die" from second-hand smoke, it's me, and I'm not the slightest bit worried about it...so I think you can relax.
Thanks, Neets. (I am a dork, I know - but I really didn't know.)
That seems like a lot of money, by the way! I was just looking online after seeing this article, and prices seem to be much lower than that on the 'net.
"What's next? Will you be outlawing coupons used at the grocery stores?"
No taxes will be added before coupons are deducted so you will be paying taxes on money deducted from the total.
I should not give the looters this idea.:)
You are correct. Muchlower on the 'net.
A big part of my carton went to state taxes. Not sure how much..but I know i can get them for much cheaper on line.
But again, i'd have to report those sales on my State Income tax, so I am not saving anything.
That tho, goes for ALL online purchases I have made.
Well, it isn't personal that's for sure.
However when a poster pulls the pin and tosses a grenade my way, if they don't follow it to defuse it all I can do is launch a counter attack before it goes off and hope I survive.
Neets, we have come across so much hate and bashing on our smoking threads that it puts my 'fur' up.
Firebrand said the money was coming out of HER pocket. How? She doesn't smoke, so how can NYC's loss of taxes on cigarettes be coming out her pocket???
Her postings:
Most of the people ordering cigarettes online are buying them in enormous quantities and reselling them. It is $75 million in tax money they are taking right out of our pockets.
Ok. If she doesn't smoke, how can these taxes be taken out of HER pocket?
Why is it not my money? We are already up to $9 for everyone in the five boroughs. If they don't pay it, we do. (If she doesn't smoke, then how is she paying for it?)
but I choose not to die by inhaling other people's cigarette smoke. That's if I have any choice about it, of course.
Why does she insist that second hand smoke is a killer? There are many studies out there disproving this concept. Yet, she insists on believing the anti's spewing lies. And she lives in New York CITY for heaven's sake. Does she wear a gas mask when she walks around the city? The fumes from all those taxi's and all those vending vans???
The status quo is that there is a hefty tax on cigarettes. It is built into the budget. Therefore the money that does not come from cigarette tax has to come from somewhere else. I don't think I'm mixed up--just taxed enough already.
If she doesn't smoke, she is NOT taxed to death from the taxes on cigarettes.
This much is true. The cheaters will find another way.
We don't take lightly to being called "cheaters."
But I do mind when other people aren't carrying what is their fair share by law. That is one of the many little sociopathologies exhibited by New Yorkers.
Fair share of the law??? What is she talking about? Why should 25-30% of the people who choose to smoke a legal commodity in NYC be expected to pay the enormous taxes being imposed on them by lawmakers who have become gluttons?
It just seems to me that breathing is one of the most important things you do, and if you're breathing in cigarette smoke, you're doing that wrong. The idea that you are expected to breathe in carcinogenic particles exhaled by others wherever you go is one of the phenomena that will be looked upon in the future as, quite frankly, insane.
She judges us by saying that because we smoke, we are "doing wrong." That is her own personal opinion and has no basis for being here. We are going to be called 'insane?' Why is it ok for her to form her own nasty opinions about US and we, in your opinion, not expected to stand up to this? We are not Sheeple, Neets.
Nicotine addiction and common sense. Oh, and we mustn't forget libertarian extremists, who side with the addicts.
Nicotine addiction. There she goes again!
Well that does it. Since you admit that I am ahead, and I am tired of the abuse, ta ta everybody
Abuse? And that has not been her intention all along toward us on this thread? I don't know, but it seems like you want a double standard here. Your friend can come in and say whatever she wants, but the minute we stand up for our rights and our knowledge of all the hard work we have done with research and by trying to get the real truth out there, you come down on us. Especially me. Sorry you feel this way. But there IS two sides to every story.
Not to worry. Second hand smoke is not the killer the highly paid professional anti's would have you believe.
I often tell the anti-smokers: you go into your car in the garage with the door down. Run your engine for a half hour.
I, too, will go sit in MY car in an enclosed garage and I will smoke and maybe bring 7 of my smoking friends and we will sit there for a half hour in the enclosed garage and we will all smoke WITH the windows up.
I will bet any amount of money who comes out alive. Guess who that will be? heh!
I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm refuting your statement where you unequivocally said that "there is NO law that requires anyone to buy anything form the state or city they live in" which as I noted, is false.
I am only addressing your comment that you made about her having to retreat after she encountered opposition.
That's not the way to do things and you know it.
If that were the case on every and all threads here at FR, there would be many, many empty threads.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, whether you or I agree or disagree, or agree to disagree.
It doesn't matter if Firebrand is my friend or not.
I am not sure where the written rule can be located here that tells one to retreat from a thread when they encounter opposition.
Have a great weekend.
Point taken, the key word I am refuted for being NO and ONLY, I stand corrected. I meant legal, and unregulated commodities. But should have said that.
Roll your own. :)
Amen!
Oh I will Mom. Thanks. You too.
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.