Saturday, March 21, 2009
I bring this up cause if we WERE the same customers at the same shops that reported those Michigan orders, I dunno why I haven't received back tax bills from the two shops I bought cigs from more than a year ago (dating back to my first-ever orders with both of them). Most shops who report orders will do so within a few months afta you place your first-ever order with them. Not within 2-4 years afta becoming their customer.
Those shops that do report orders within years from now, those shops are forced to do so thanks to the govt. I heard of authorities shutting down smoke shops like esmokes afta that shop was sued by one of these states.
If any smoker is gonna buy cigs online, he/she needs to do research on the shop before placing an order. The first thang I look for is price when doing my research not just for a carton. But for the shipping as well. Some shops might sell a brand for only 20 bucks/carton next month. But their shipping costs are too darn high (for the sake of illustration).
My next step is calling the shop's numba and see if I can talk to a rep. I heard at cigarettesexpress.com, their numba doesn't work when you call them...you just get a voice message every time. That's a red flag to me in itself. If their email doesn't work and if you don't talk to an actual person on every call attempt, why botha buying from cigarettesexpress.com? They might be a scam version of an online smoke shop.
Just like I'm different from most smoking activists personality-wise, every smoke shop online is different. Some shops have honest reps, some of them have reps who do a darn good job of sounding like a liar (especially on email replies tp you), and a few of them really have nobody you can contact by phone OR email.
And of course, the prices are actually different (on cartons and shipping) at every smoke shop. Like a Newport carton at one shop is 42 bucks. While at anotha shop, a carton of Newports is 49 bucks. Based on this illustration, I'd compare both shops' shipping rates for one carton before I decide which shop I'd place an order with. There's a small possiblity that while the carton is $49 at one shop, their shipping rate for 1 carton might be lower than it is at the shop with the $42 Newport carton price.
Oh yeah, some smoke shops make it clear on their sites that they DO report orders. Like smartsmoker.com. DO NOT BUY SH!T FROM SHOPS LIKE THESE! I don't care how much a carton is. A month from now, smartsmoker.com could sell Newports at only 35 bucks/carton and be non-FSCs for all I care. That cheap price ain't worth it when that shop is violating my right to privacy.
Some more red flags on shops that likely report orders:
-They have referral programs where you get paid commissions for referring a customer. I don't get a single penny for promoting the brand on my blog. That ain't a "referral link" I have on there in otha words.
-You send an email to them, but it takes weeks to get a reply. If that shop had trustworthy reps, they would respond to your email within 24 hours at best, since they would be working every day.
This post is disorganized. But I think smokers don't have to worry about back taxes at all if they do research on any smoke shop they look into first.
Friday, March 20, 2009
I got one lil surprise in Indiana. A Newport pack for now is only 5 bucks. Otha brands like Marlboro are 6 bucks per pack over there.
This smoke shop I went to used to have LOTS of customers in it during the days of a Newport pack being only 3 bucks. But it sure was quiet when I walked in there. Aside from the W lady smoking behind the cash register.
One bro walked in there and just bought one pack of Newports. I know well how a lotta smokers are poor. But I guess he wasn't there to stock up on packs before the price goes up again.
I think even "premade smokers" (who don't use the net a lot) will get the biggest shock of their lives as of April when they see 6 bucks for a Newport pack in Indiana. :(
If a W person doesn't attempt to assassinate him at some point over the next 4 years, a W person who smokes will definitely try to kill him. Cause he NEEDS to confront a fed-up smoker with the way he's trying to control smokers' lives. I wouldn't mind telling him directly "What I do in my life as a smoker is none of your Fkin business. If you gonna try to force my poor self to quit smoking, you might have betta luck assassinating smokers who don't believe a single word from antis! Cause 'brotha,' I have NO intention on quitting smoking! I will do whateva it takes to get cigs!"
But I guess if he did kill a prosmoker like me, that would be on the front of the newspaper, but in a different way. "President murders Black Man on White House Visit."
From March 2008
's legislative record in the tobacco control arena is extensive.
First, this very week Senator Obama joined nine U.S. Senate colleagues in calling on President Bush to send to the Senate for ratification the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the world's first public health treaty.
Second, Senator Obama was one of the original cosponsors of pending landmark legislation providing the Food and Drug Administration with authority to regulate tobacco products and tobacco marketing.
Prior to that, Senator Obama is on record as supporting, and sometimes leading, a number of tobacco control efforts, both as a U.S. Senator and in his years as a Illinois:in
2005: Obama Voted To Create The Display Of Tobacco Products Act - The Display of Tobacco Products Act, among other things, provides that it is unlawful to sell, offer for sale, give away, or display tobacco products for sale at any location where the consumer can acquire those products through self-service. Provides that every tobacco product must be displayed from behind a sales or service counter so that a consumer cannot access tobacco products without assistance by an employee of the retail establishment authorized to sell tobacco products. Provides that it is unlawful to sell, offer for sale, give away, or display tobacco products for sale at any location unless the tobacco products are displayed from behind a sales or service counter or in an age restricted area of a retail establishment or in an enclosed display case so that a consumer cannot access tobacco products without the assistance of an employee of the retail establishment authorized to sell tobacco products. Provides that it is unlawful for any person who sells tobacco products over the counter to maintain such products in any location accessible to customers that is not within the line of sight, or under the control, of a cashier or other employee during regular business hours. [93rd GA, HB 318, 3R P 57-0-0, 5/7/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05]
2004: Obama Voted To Restrict The Display Of- Creates the Display of Tobacco Products Act. Among other things, provides that it is unlawful to sell, offer for sale, give away, or display tobacco products for sale at any location unless the tobacco products are displayed from behind a sales or service counter or in an age restricted area of a retail establishment or in an enclosed display case so that a consumer cannot access tobacco products without the assistance of an employee of the retail establishment authorized to sell tobacco products. Provides that single packs of cigarettes must be sold from behind the counter or in an age restricted area in which minors under 18 years of age are not permitted access unless accompanied by an adult or in a sealed display case and all other tobacco products must be in the line of sight of the cashier or other employee of the store. [93rd GA, HB 4302, 3R P 58-0-0, 5/13/04; PA 93-0886, 8/9/04]
2003: Obama Co-Sponsored Bill To Use Money From Tobacco Settlement Recovery Fund - Creates the Tobacco Settlement Recovery Fund Uses Act. Among other things, provides for a comprehensive tobacco use prevention and reduction program, to be administered by the Department of Public Health. Under a separate program, provides for grants from the Department of Public Health to free medical clinics and not-for-profit health clinics. Under a third program, provides for grants from the Department of Public Health to local health departments to achieve local priorities. Provides for a biomedical research program, to be administered by the Illinois Board of Higher Education. [92nd GA, HB 2001, Session Sine Die, 1/7/03]
2003: Obama Sponsored Bill To Make Illegal Alcoholic Cigarette Wrapping Paper - In 2003, Obama voted to amend the Tobacco Accessories and Smoking Herbs Control Act which states that a person may not knowingly sell, barter, exchange, deliver, or give away to any other person any cigarette wrapping paper or wrapping leaf that is, or is held out to be, impregnated or scented with, or aged or dipped in, or honey, or both. [92nd GA; HB 5909; 2002; Session Sine Die 1/7/03]
2003: Obama Voted To Prohibit Cigarette Distribution From Vendors Within 1000 Feet of A School - In 2003, Obama voted to amend the Sale of Tobacco to Minors Act to provide that the sale or distribution at no charge of cigarettes from a lunch wagon engaging in any sales activity within 1,000 feet of any public or private elementary or secondary school grounds is prohibited. [93 GA, SB 1030, 3R 53-1-1, 3/20/03; PA 93-0284, 7/22/03]
2003: Obama Sponsored Bill To Increase Minimum Age To Buy Tobacco - In 2003, Obama voted to increase the age at which a person may lawfully buy cigarettes or other tobacco products from 18 to 19. [93rd GA; HB 1383; 2003; Referred to Rules 3/21/03, Alternate co-sponsor added 4/10/03]
2002: Obama Supported Increase In Sen. Obama said, 'A 75-cent-a-pack increase in the state's cigarette tax would help relieve the state's budget problems and cut down on the number of Illinoisans who smoke . . . At present, the cigarette tax is 58 cents a pack. Most brands now cost $3 to $5 a pack. Imposing the higher tax would mean 'we get a two-fer' because fewer teens would smoke, and the state would get an extra $500 million to plug holes in the budget,' said state Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago. 'It's going to be hard for us to find a better solution than this one,' he said." [SJR, 4/5/02]- SJR reported, "
2002: Obama Voted to Allow Employees of the Department of Revenue to Arrest Any Person Violating the Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1995 - Amends the Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1995. Provides that any duly authorized employee of the Department of Revenue (i) may arrest without warrant any person committing in his or her presence a violation of any of the provisions of the Act (ii) and may without a search warrant inspect all tobacco products located in any place of business and seize any tobacco products and any vending device in which those tobacco products are found. Provides that the tobacco products or vending devices so seized shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture under the Act. Provides procedures for the seizure, forfeiture, and sale of tobacco products found to be in violation of the Act. [92nd GA, SB 2211, 3R P 55-0-0, 3/6/02; PA 92-0743, 7/25/02]
2001: Obama Sponsored Bill Prohibiting Bidi Cigarette Distribution - In 2001, Obama voted to criminalize the distribution of "," which contain tobacco that is wrapped in temburni or tendu leaf or a similar substance, and do not contain a smoke filtering device to another person. [91st GA, SB 1583, 2000; Referred to rules 2/1/00; Session Sine Die, 1/9/01]
2001: Obama Voted For Bill That Taxed Snuff - In 2001, Obama voted for a bill that amends the Tobacco Products Tax Act to define snuff and impose a tax of 37 cents per ounce of snuff. [92nd GA, SB 449, 3R P; 48-3-3, 3/29/01]
2001: Obama Sponsored Bill To Tax Out-Of-State Tobacco Distributors - In 2001, Obama voted to designate out-of State distributors as subject to the Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1995 when they sell tobacco products to retailers and consumers in Illinois. [92nd GA; SB 0853; 2001; PA 92-0231; 8/2/01]
2000: Obama Sponsored Bill To Ban Sale Of Bidi Cigarettes - Chicago Defender reported, "Joined by Father Michael Pfleger and Ald. Terry Peterson (17th), Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) is introducing legislation that will ban the sale of bidi cigarettes. According to Obama, bidi cigarettes, which come in bright-colored, cone-shaped packages of 20 costing $2.50 a pack, are targeted to young people primarily because they resemble marijuana 'joints' that are wrapped in a nonporous, brownish leaf and come in various flavors he says appeal to teens and those in their 20's. 'These are strong, flavored cigarettes that are becoming an increasing part of our youth culture of exploration in Illinois and across the country,' Obama said." [Chicago Defender, 2/5/2000]
Compiled by: Clifford E. Douglas, J.D.
Executive Director, University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network
Adjunct Lecturer, University of Michigan School of Public Health
Email: cdoug@umich. edu
Website: http://www.umtrn. sph.umich. edu
If you choose to read the comments for this article, you might get a laugh outta that anti who implies smokers were used by tobacco companies.
Last time I checked, Lorillard neva "used me" by giving me a free Newport pack. Although there WAS an era when they used to give out free Newports to folks in black communities....that was a few years before I was born in the 70s.
But I'M the one who decided to smoke Newports. Not Lorillard. As anotha person implied in the comments, antis will be next when they start paying more taxes on fast food. They (the antis) will b!t+ch about taxes then if they ever have to pay 10 bucks for a Big Mac.
Just cause tobacco taxes don't affect antis doesn't mean the tax increase will hurt them in otha ways in the near future. First it's tobacco. The next items that will see tax increases is fast food and this 10-cent/gallon tax increase on gasoline I heard about. I know antis use gasoline and they love fast food.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The United Pro Choice March 13, 2009 - Issue #519
| The Four Commandments of the Anti-Smoking Movement: A Tribute to the Memory and Legacy of Gian Turci. By Michael Siegel. Gian was insightful, because there is great truth to the idea that in the tobacco control movement there is an almost abstinence-only approach to public health. The idea of harm reduction has been almost entirely shunned, but without careful consideration of the actual science-base and evidence for what might be the most effective strategies for tobacco control.|
Fire-safe cigarettes: Smokers as lab experiments. Where are the concerns about additives in the case of "fire-safe" cigarettes? How come the public health “authorities” are silent on this? Where are the antismoking groups that claim to “worry” about the “health” of their victims while really worrying only about their grants?
States Budget Crises Arrive Like Clockwork. Lawmakers once again turn to cigarette taxes to balance their budgets. By Michael Flynn. Isn't it time we retired this skit? We're almost one decade through the 21st century and our esteemed lawmakers in state capitals are still using a decades-old recipe: Boom and bust budgets; cigarette taxes when times get tough. Stir. It seems our state lawmakers have reached their "sell-by" date.
HI: Smoking bans fail in Hawaii Legislature. Proposed bans on slim cigarettes and smoking on Waikiki Beach have faltered.
KS: Governor Kathleen Sebelius at Odds with OSHA.
MD: Lawmaker wants smoking banned in cars with youngsters.
SD: The evolution of a fraud. By Lance Morgan.
UT: Anti-smoking efforts losing big in Legislature. As two tobacco tax bills languish on Utah's Capitol Hill, the $4 million fund for advertising and marketing of a smoking cessation program is also being raided. This combination is especially disturbing to anti-tobacco advocates.
The Canadian Smokers Rights Newsletter, read all the news.
Death: Questions arise. Human life is a precious and fragile thing.
Rights: 'Privacy' doesn't matter to those seeking to control you.
Smokers stay home. Six Flags Over Georgia Lowers Prices.
Chemicals: Probable Carcinogens Found in Baby Toiletries. Some of the biggest names on the market, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo and Baby Magic lotion, tested positive for 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde, or both, the nonprofit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
He made it sound like if a Cub fan sees tons of cashiers smoking just before the cashiers enter the ballpark for work, then those Cub fans won't botha coming up to me to place any orders on the game day.
I dunno what that "boy" is smoking....I hope it ain't crack. LOL Who said fans won't botha letting smoking cashiers serve them? As drunk as some of those fans are before the gates even open, if there's a Cub fan who approaches me and says "Didn't I see you smoking outside earlier? I'll take a hot dog or a beer," then that Cub fan has a darn good memory. My nice looks must've left a good impression on that fan's face if he can rememba seeing me smoking as if that's a big deal. I hope he tips me since I left a good image for him outside as a black smoker. LOL
If I was a fan, I'd be like "Who cares if you smoke? Just gimme two cups of Bud so I can go to my darn seats." (No problem sir. Just don't forget to pay before you leave. LOL!!)
Anyway, while I was gone, I was reminded by myself while there's nothang wrong with trying hard to find an alternative cig brand, I still have this "psychological connection" related with smoking Newports when it comes to being outside smoking in public. When some folks see me, sistas in particular will try asking me for a Newport even if I'm actually not holding a cig. They still make a good "social brand" to smoke. But I still don't like the idea of smoking Newports every day like I used to. That's one reason why I tried several cheapa brands. So I can find an alternative brand I can smoke for my personal enjoyment when at home (and I recently reached that goal of finding a new brand).
But this leads into the next topic. Now I got TWO incentives to stock up on cartons. I not only gotta stock up on Kick cartons online before April. But now that there's talk about Congress trying to force USPS to stop delivering tobacco period. Which means I actually gotta stock up on Newport cartons as well, but sooner than I thought on those.
Cause I gotta take advantage of spending slightly less than 50 bucks per carton on Newports NOW. Not just cause of the tax increase, but IF the days of buying tobacco online comes to an end, I'm gonna be forced to smoke my old brand for good. That I don't have a problem with. But paying 70-100 bucks for one Newport carton offline? I ain't paying that kind of sh!t for ANY cig brand offline, even if I bought one carton at a time instead!
I learned about managing money when I was a younga smoker. But with the April tax increase AND this idea of me possibly not buying any cigs online anymore period, "Managing money as a smoker" takes on a new meaning for me this month. I wish I was rich enough to buy enough cartons of both brands for one full year as the MYO smokers are doing (on buying enough pounds of tobacco for a year). But buying enough cartons of Kicks and Newports for 2-3 months is good for me.
I STILL hope I won't have my option of buying cigs online taken away. What I plan on spending on several cartons of two brands for March is gonna be cheap. Since I won't have to buy cigs again period til late June at the "earliest." But when we get to the summer, and Congress takes away my right to buy cigs online period, I still meant it when I said "I ain't paying a MFkin 70-100 bucks for just one Newport carton offline!" That would be at least 210 bucks spent offline for 3 Newport cartons per month if I went to Indiana. And sh!t, even with the scheduled tax increase, a Newport carton would still be cheapa online. 50 bucks for Newports online is gonna be the "new cheap price" for buying em ANYWHERE, and I don't want Congress telling me where I can spend my money for cigs at! Especially when I take into account the best cig brands are all-natural and cheap cigs that ain't available offline anywhere. :(
I'm not gonna think about what I will do as a smoker if this bill becomes reality.
I know this for sure...I ain't paying a MFkin 9-10 bucks to smoke my old brand of Newports per day. So even buying those cigs offline ain't an option. I would dearly miss the Native brands I tried over the past few months. And I'll especially miss the Kick cig brand that I got accustomed to recently.
Buying MYO materials would be my closest option, although the offline MYO shops around me are too far away.
I think this is a case of politicians and antis trying to murder smokers indirectly. Raising cig prices every year didn't work. Smoking bans obviously ain't helping in forcing smokers to quit.
The new techniques they using to force smokers to quit now is taxing them to death with SCHIP, making the Big Tobacco brands FSCs, and now they wanna take away the option of buying any tobacco online period.
How the heck do politicians expect smokers to fund SCHIP when they (and antis) are doing everythang in their power to indirectly threat smokers to quit?
I hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court as I read on a different forum (if the bill passes).
Monday, March 16, 2009
CLICK THIS to view the actual page.
To amend title 39, United States Code, to make cigarettes and certain other tobacco products nonmailable, and for other purposes. (Introduced in House)
HR 1400 IH
March 9, 2009
Mr. MCHUGH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NONMAILABILITY OF CERTAIN TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
- (a) In General- Chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 3002a the following:
`Sec. 3002b. Nonmailability of certain tobacco products
- `(a) In General- Except as provided in subsections (g) and (h), cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and roll-your-own-tobacco--
- `(1) are nonmailable matter;
- `(2) shall not be--
- `(A) deposited in the mails; or
- `(B) carried or delivered through the mails; and
- `(3) shall be disposed of as the Postal Service directs.
- `(b) Civil Penalty-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who violates subsection (a)(2)(A) shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each violation.
- `(2) HEARINGS-
- `(A) IN GENERAL- The Postal Service may determine that a person has violated subsection (a)(2)(A) only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Proceedings under this paragraph shall be conducted in accordance with section 3001(m).
- `(B) PENALTY CONSIDERATIONS- In determining the amount of a civil penalty under this paragraph, the Postal Service shall consider--
- `(i) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation;
- `(ii) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, ability to pay, and any history of prior violations; and
- `(iii) such other matters as justice may require.
- `(3) CIVIL ACTIONS- The Postal Service may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States, in accordance with section 409(g)(2), to enjoin violations of subsection (a)(2)(A), to collect a civil penalty under this section, or to seek such other relief with respect to violations of subsection (a)(2)(A) as the court may deem appropriate.
- `(4) DISPOSITION OF AMOUNTS- Amounts received in payment of any civil penalties under this subsection shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States.
- `(c) Orders- Upon evidence satisfactory to the Postal Service that any person is engaged in the sending of mail matter which is nonmailable under this section, the Postal Service may issue an order which--
- `(1) directs any postmaster, to whom any mailing originating with such person or his representative is tendered for transmission through the mails (other than a mailing that consists only of one or more sealed letters), to refuse to accept any such mailing, unless such person or his representative first establishes to the satisfaction of the postmaster that the mailing does not contain any matter which is nonmailable under this section; and
- `(2) requires the person or his representative to cease and desist from mailing any mail matter which is nonmailable under this section.
- `(d) Prima Facie Evidence- For the purposes of this section, prima facie evidence that a person is engaged in the mailing of matter which is nonmailable under this section may include a statement on a publicly available website, or an advertisement, by any person that such person will mail matter which is nonmailable under this section in return for payment or other consideration.
- `(e) Coordination of Efforts- In the enforcement of this section, the Postal Service shall cooperate with, and coordinate its efforts with related activities of, any other Federal agency or any State or local government, whenever appropriate.
- `(f) Actions by States Relating to Certain Tobacco Products-
- `(1) AUTHORITY OF STATES- Whenever the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that any person has engaged or is engaging in mailings to residents of that State in violation of subsection (a)(2)(A), the State may bring, in an appropriate district court of the United States, a civil action--
- `(A) to enjoin such mailings;
- `(B) to carry out paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (b) with respect to such mailings; or
- `(C) to carry out subparagraphs (A) and (B).
- In the course of any such action, the State may seek damages equal to the amount of any unpaid taxes on tobacco products mailed in violation of subsection (a)(2)(A) to residents of the State and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
- `(2) RIGHTS OF THE POSTAL SERVICE- The State shall serve prior written notice of any action under paragraph (1) upon the Postal Service and provide the Postal Service with a copy of its complaint, except in any case in which such prior notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The Postal Service, in accordance with section 409(g)(2), shall have the right (A) to intervene in the action, (B) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising therein, and (C) to file petitions for appeal.
- `(3) EFFECT ON STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS- Nothing contained in this section shall be considered to prohibit an authorized State official from proceeding in State court on the basis of an alleged violation of any general civil or criminal statute of such State.
- `(4) LIMITATION- Whenever the Postal Service institutes a civil action under subsection (a)(3) for a violation of subsection (a)(2)(A), no State may, during the pendency of such action, institute a separate civil action for any violation of subsection (a)(2)(A) against any defendant named in the Postal Service's complaint.
- `(g) Mailings Between Legal Tobacco Industry Businesses and Government Agencies-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- Tobacco products otherwise made nonmailable by subsection (a) may, beginning on the effective date of regulations prescribed under paragraph (2), be mailed--
- `(A) for business purposes between businesses that--
- `(i) have all government licenses or permits that are required in order to do business; and
- `(ii) are engaged in tobacco product manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, export, import, testing, investigation, or research; or
- `(B) for regulatory purposes between any business described in subparagraph (A) and any government agency.
- `(2) REGULATIONS- The Postal Service may prescribe regulations governing mailings under this subsection, including regulations to carry out the following:
- `(A) The Postal Service shall verify that any person depositing any otherwise nonmailable tobacco product into the mails under this subsection is a business or government agency permitted to make such mailing under this subsection.
- `(B) The Postal Service shall ensure that any recipient of any otherwise nonmailable tobacco product sent through the mails under this subsection is a business or government agency permitted to receive such mailing under this subsection.
- `(C) The mailing shall be sent using a method that provides for the tracking and confirmation of delivery.
- `(D) The identity of the business or government agency from which the mailing is sent, and the identity of the business or government agency to which the mailing is sent, shall be clearly set forth on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper in which such mailing is sent, and all of that information shall, for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the mailing, be kept in Postal Service records and made available to persons enforcing subsection (a)(2)(A).
- `(E) The mailing shall be marked with a Postal Service label or marking that makes it clear that such mailing--
- `(i) is a permissible mailing of otherwise nonmailable tobacco products; and
- `(ii) may be delivered only to a business described in paragraph (1)(A) or a government employee or entity.
- `(F) The mailing shall be delivered only to a verified employee or agent of the recipient business or government agency, who--
- `(i) has been duly authorized to accept such mailing; and
- `(ii) shall be required to sign for the mailing.
- `(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be considered to subject a government agency or any government employee or agent to any penalty or other restriction in connection with any mailing made by such employee or agent, acting within the scope of his employment or agency.
- `(h) Mailings Between Individuals-
- `(1) IN GENERAL- Tobacco products otherwise made nonmailable by subsection (a) may be mailed between individuals (other than in any of the circumstances to which subsection (g) applies), for non-moneymaking purposes, beginning on the effective date of regulations prescribed under paragraph (2).
- `(2) REGULATIONS- The Postal Service may prescribe regulations establishing the standards and requirements which shall govern all mailings under this subsection, including regulations to carry out the following:
- `(A) The Postal Service shall verify that the person depositing the otherwise nonmailable tobacco product into the mails is properly identified on the return address of the mailing.
- `(B) The Postal Service shall require the person depositing the otherwise nonmailable tobacco product into the mails to affirm that the recipient is an individual who is of legal age to purchase tobacco products.
- `(C) The Postal Service shall require the person depositing the otherwise nonmailable tobacco product into the mails to affirm that the product is not being sent for moneymaking purposes.
- `(D) The mailing shall weigh not more than 10 ounces.
- `(E) The mailing shall be sent using a method that provides for the tracking and confirmation of delivery.
- `(F) The Postal Service shall deliver the mailing only to the verified recipient (as described in subparagraph (B)) at the recipient's address, including an Air/Army Postal Office (APO) or Fleet Postal Office (FPO) address.
- `(i) Definitions- For purposes of this section--
- `(1) the terms `cigarette' and `roll-your-own-tobacco' have the meanings given them by section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
- `(2) the term `smokeless tobacco' has the meaning given such term by section 2341 of title 18; and
- `(3) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.'.
- (b) Administrative Subpoenas- Section 3016(a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) by inserting `3002b or' before `3005(a)'.
- (c) Enforcement of Postal Service Orders- Section 3012 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
- (1) in subsection (b), by striking `or (d)' each place it appears and inserting `(d), or (e)';
- (2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and
- (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
- `(e) Any person who fails to comply with an order issued under section 3002b(c)(2) shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty--
- `(1) not to exceed $10,000 for each mailing of fewer than 10 pieces;
- `(2) not to exceed $50,000 for each mailing of 10 to 50 pieces; and
- `(3) not to exceed $100,000 for each mailing of more than 50 pieces.'; and
- (4) in subsection (g) (as so redesignated by paragraph (2)), by inserting `3002b(c)(2) or' before `3005' each place it appears.
- (d) Semiannual Reports- Section 3013 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
- (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `3002b(b) or' before `3005';
- (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting `3002b(c) or' before `3005(e)'; and
- (3) in paragraph (3), by striking `section 3007 of this title' and inserting `section 3002b(c) or section 3007, respectively,'.
- (e) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3002a the following:
- `3002b. Nonmailability of certain tobacco products.'.
- (f) Effective Dates-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the 60th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to any mail matter mailed on or after such 60th day.
- (2) SEMIANNUAL REPORTS- The amendments made by subsection (d) shall apply beginning with the report submitted for the reporting period in which occurs the 60th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.
- (a) In General- Sections 3007(a)(1), 3012(b)(1), and 3018(f)(1) of title 39, United States Code, are amended by striking `409(d)' and inserting `409(g)(2)'.
- (b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109-435).
Denying someone unemployment for failing a drug test and for having nicotine in their system is crazy! That's a clever way to turn unemployed smokers into criminals and/or homeless people!
Drug Test Bill Waits On Action
Charleston, Kanawha County
No movement is expected this week at the State Capitol on the proposed bill that would subject anyone who receives state assistance to random drug tests. That bill is currently sitting in the House Judiciary Committee.
House Majority Whip and Marion County Delegate Mike Caputo says that's where it should stay.
"I think it's ridiculous," says Delegate Caputo. He says the proposal would be an insult to many people. "To accuse them, just pointing at them because they're poor or because they're on hard times, (saying) they're probably a drug user, that is ridiculous."
One of the co-sponsors of the bill, Jackson County Delegate Mitch Carmichael disagrees. "It's crazy not to drug test," he says.
Delegate Carmichael continues, "If we think for an instant that drugs don't cost our society more than the costs associated with testing, then that's just ridiculous. We're burying our heads in the sand and not realizing the real cost of drug usage in our communities and throughout our state and our nation."
Delegate Caputo says it's hard enough to ask for help. "I've been through those times. I've been laid off. I've been to where I didn't know if I was going to make the bills at the end of the month and had to collect an unemployment check. It would have been humiliating to me that I was struck with some hard times and I would have to do a drug test."
Delegate Carmichael says it's something many others in the private sector are already doing. "If workers have to take a drug test to get a job, then why shouldn't people that are on state aid have a drug test as well?"
As part of H.B. 3007, the random drug testing would be implemented for those who receive welfare, unemployment benefits or what used to be called food stamps. After a number of drafting delays, it was officially introduced at the State House last week.
CLICK HERE FOR CHART
Some MYO smokers online think the tax increase doesn't apply to their loose tobacco. But as of April, they'll be in for a rude awakening. As everyone can see, the tax increase deals with more than just cigarette brands (including Native American/small tobacco cig brands)
I'm sure these "drug tests" include searching for nic in the person's body. I guess that FL lawmaker thinks "If you can afford to buy tobacco, then you don't need unemployment."
Or maybe money is not meant to be spent on tobacco. And Florida doesn't want their unemployment funds being spent on drugs (and tobacco). I heard a similar argument before like "Money is not meant to be used to buy cigs."
What I spend my money on is none of your Fkin business. I guess that FL lawmaker wants to turn more unemployed smokers into homeless people...and make more unemployed smokers criminals at the same time. Cause if you gonna deny someone unemployment for failing a drug test, how the F is that person gonna get money period? Sh!t, by robbing a bank for money and a C-store for cigs?
I personally hope that proposed idea does NOT pass. Denying someone unemployment benefits for being a smoker (as part of failing a drug test) shows politicians could give a flying sh!t about unemployed smokers who used to work their arses off as Americans.
Would a FL lawmaker like me saying "You shouldn't be spending your money on beer?" If a lawmaker punched me for asking that Q, I'd do the same thang to you on being told "Money is not meant to be spent on tobacco if you're unemployed." And I'd make sure my punch is a good one too, since I hope I can wake your brain up by knocking you out. LOL