Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
=> VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
=> VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
July 1, 2008
New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
July 1, 2008
New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
>July 1, 2008
>
>
>New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
>MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
>and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
>It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
>or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
>Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
>retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
>Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
>tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
>for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Oh, crap. That means Vermont nicotine addicts will have to
pay the $1.99 per pack tax.
In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
>July 1, 2008
>
>
>New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
>MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
>and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
>It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
>or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
>Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
>retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
>Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
>tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
>for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Oh, crap. That means Vermont nicotine addicts will have to
pay the $1.99 per pack tax.
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Reality_Check©" <Reality@Check,it > wrote:
> July 1, 2008
>
>
> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Nice idea, but it is unenforceable.
In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Reality_Check©" <Reality@Check,it > wrote:
> July 1, 2008
>
>
> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Nice idea, but it is unenforceable.
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
In article <srhi-0F1746.19470002072008@comcast.dca.giganews,com >,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
>
>> July 1, 2008
>>
>> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>>
>> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
>> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>>
>> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
>> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
>> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
>> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>>
>> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
>> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
>> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
>
>Nice idea, but it is unenforceable.
It's enforced in other states.
The state simply runs a sting with a minor, gets a court order
for the outfit's records, then sends a bill to those on the list.
Yes, it's evil, but money is money.
In article <srhi-0F1746.19470002072008@comcast.dca.giganews,com >,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
>
>> July 1, 2008
>>
>> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>>
>> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
>> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>>
>> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
>> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
>> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
>> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>>
>> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
>> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
>> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
>
>Nice idea, but it is unenforceable.
It's enforced in other states.
The state simply runs a sting with a minor, gets a court order
for the outfit's records, then sends a bill to those on the list.
Yes, it's evil, but money is money.
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
"Bruce Watson" <anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net > wrote in message
news:1215103523.449241@irys.nyx,net ...
> In article <srhi-0F1746.19470002072008@comcast.dca.giganews,com >,
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>
>>> July 1, 2008
>>>
>>> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>>>
>>> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of
>>> cigarettes
>>> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>>>
>>> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little
>>> cigars
>>> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through
>>> the
>>> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed
>>> wholesale or
>>> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William
>>> Sorrell.
>>>
>>> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
>>> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no
>>> systems
>>> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
>>
>>Nice idea, but it is unenforceable.
>
> It's enforced in other states.
>
> The state simply runs a sting with a minor, gets a court order
> for the outfit's records, then sends a bill to those on the list.
>
> Yes, it's evil, but money is money.
"Yes, it's evil, but money is money."
-- BigTobacco's Mantra
"Bruce Watson" <anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net > wrote in message
news:1215103523.449241@irys.nyx,net ...
> In article <srhi-0F1746.19470002072008@comcast.dca.giganews,com >,
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast,net > wrote:
>>In article <6d2a3jFgc4kU1@mid.individual,net >,
>>
>>> July 1, 2008
>>>
>>> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>>>
>>> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of
>>> cigarettes
>>> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>>>
>>> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little
>>> cigars
>>> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through
>>> the
>>> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed
>>> wholesale or
>>> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William
>>> Sorrell.
>>>
>>> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
>>> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no
>>> systems
>>> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
>>
>>Nice idea, but it is unenforceable.
>
> It's enforced in other states.
>
> The state simply runs a sting with a minor, gets a court order
> for the outfit's records, then sends a bill to those on the list.
>
> Yes, it's evil, but money is money.
"Yes, it's evil, but money is money."
-- BigTobacco's Mantra
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
Reality Check© wrote:
> July 1, 2008
>
>
> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Since when do states have the authority to regulate interstate trade?
No cheers.
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Reality Check© wrote:
> July 1, 2008
>
>
> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes
> and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars
> or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the
> Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a licensed wholesale or
> retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
> Stores currently check photo identification to prevent illegal sales of
> tobacco products, but many Internet sellers have inadequate or no systems
> for verifying the buyer's age, Sorrell said.
Since when do states have the authority to regulate interstate trade?
No cheers.
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
On 2008-07-03, Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>
> Since when do states have the authority to regulate interstate trade?
While I would tend to agree with you that it shouldn't be allowed,
this is an area of commerce that is still being battled over. The
problem comes down to where the purchase is happening. The states are
arguing, in part, that since the consumer never leaves the state, the
purchase happens in the state.
NY is now taxing all internet sales. I haven't done much purchasing
since the law changed, but anyone selling to a consumer in NY is
"required" to collect sales tax and remit to the NYS Treasury
Department. I suppose that if they don't, it will still be left to
the consumer, and I haven't looked in to how they plan to enforce, but
the law came on line 6/1, IIRC.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
On 2008-07-03, Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>
> Since when do states have the authority to regulate interstate trade?
While I would tend to agree with you that it shouldn't be allowed,
this is an area of commerce that is still being battled over. The
problem comes down to where the purchase is happening. The states are
arguing, in part, that since the consumer never leaves the state, the
purchase happens in the state.
NY is now taxing all internet sales. I haven't done much purchasing
since the law changed, but anyone selling to a consumer in NY is
"required" to collect sales tax and remit to the NYS Treasury
Department. I suppose that if they don't, it will still be left to
the consumer, and I haven't looked in to how they plan to enforce, but
the law came on line 6/1, IIRC.
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote
> NY is now taxing all internet sales. I haven't done much purchasing
> since the law changed, but anyone selling to a consumer in NY is
> "required" to collect sales tax and remit to the NYS Treasury
> Department. I suppose that if they don't, it will still be left to
> the consumer, and I haven't looked in to how they plan to enforce, but
> the law came on line 6/1, IIRC.
All states tax internet sales. They rely on the consumer to pay any sales
taxes not paid by the vendor.
For instance, if I buy cigars from Payless,com (an excellent retailer) based
here in Louisiana, I pay state and local sales taxes. If you live in any
other state, you would not. However, your home state requires you to remit
it, and provides a place on your state income tax return to do so. I'm sure
all of your do that.
The difference, as you correctly state, is that NY is requiring an
out-of-state vendor to collect and send NY sales taxes on sales made to NY
addresses. The Supreme Court has ruled any number of times that one state's
citizens are under no obligation to collect taxes for another state. I'm
sure that it's a matter of time before some out-of-state retailer will test
it in court and win. As for the prohibition concerning sales, that too is
likely illegal based on 200+ years of restraint of trade judicial decisions.
Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
================================================================
"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo,com > wrote
> NY is now taxing all internet sales. I haven't done much purchasing
> since the law changed, but anyone selling to a consumer in NY is
> "required" to collect sales tax and remit to the NYS Treasury
> Department. I suppose that if they don't, it will still be left to
> the consumer, and I haven't looked in to how they plan to enforce, but
> the law came on line 6/1, IIRC.
All states tax internet sales. They rely on the consumer to pay any sales
taxes not paid by the vendor.
For instance, if I buy cigars from Payless,com (an excellent retailer) based
here in Louisiana, I pay state and local sales taxes. If you live in any
other state, you would not. However, your home state requires you to remit
it, and provides a place on your state income tax return to do so. I'm sure
all of your do that.
The difference, as you correctly state, is that NY is requiring an
out-of-state vendor to collect and send NY sales taxes on sales made to NY
addresses. The Supreme Court has ruled any number of times that one state's
citizens are under no obligation to collect taxes for another state. I'm
sure that it's a matter of time before some out-of-state retailer will test
it in court and win. As for the prohibition concerning sales, that too is
likely illegal based on 200+ years of restraint of trade judicial decisions.
Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
================================================================
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
Joe wrote:
> On 2008-07-03, Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>> Since when do states have the authority to regulate interstate trade?
>
> While I would tend to agree with you that it shouldn't be allowed,
> this is an area of commerce that is still being battled over. The
> problem comes down to where the purchase is happening. The states are
> arguing, in part, that since the consumer never leaves the state, the
> purchase happens in the state.
That argument has been made for over a century, with respect to
mail order catalogs and such. It has never prevailed in Federal
Courts, and will not today.
> NY is now taxing all internet sales. I haven't done much purchasing
> since the law changed, but anyone selling to a consumer in NY is
> "required" to collect sales tax and remit to the NYS Treasury
> Department. I suppose that if they don't, it will still be left to
> the consumer, and I haven't looked in to how they plan to enforce, but
> the law came on line 6/1, IIRC.
New York has no authority to require any retailer outside New York
to do anything, with two exceptions. Amendment XXI prohibits
transport or import of alcohol into a state in violation of the laws
of the state, yielding control over such to the individual states.
And the Jenkins Act governing interstate distribution of
cigarettes (but not any other form of tobacco) requires reporting
on all sales to the state in which the buyer receives them. I
would have to look to see if the out-of-state seller must pay the
tax, but I think not. Just the reporting is onerous, though.
One may note that many states "require" residents to pay a "use
tax" or some such on goods purchased outside the state and brought
into the state. This has consistently been ruled a de facto
tariff by Federal Courts, and every time such a law is contested
in Federal Court the law (or that portion of it requiring such
payment of tax) is declared unconstitional and null and void.
If you are willing to declare such purchases and pay tax to your
state, you will get no thanks. If you do not, you may be
threatened with prosecution. If you continue to refuse, most
states do nothing but threaten. If they prosecute, you must present
your defense that such taxation is an unconstitional de facto
tariff, and appeal every decision against you until your case reaches
the Federal Courts. Once you are in Federal Court, you win, and
the state law will be struck down.
No cheers that this needs to be restated time and again.
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Joe wrote:
> On 2008-07-03, Jim Beard <jdbeard@patriot,net > wrote:
>> Since when do states have the authority to regulate interstate trade?
>
> While I would tend to agree with you that it shouldn't be allowed,
> this is an area of commerce that is still being battled over. The
> problem comes down to where the purchase is happening. The states are
> arguing, in part, that since the consumer never leaves the state, the
> purchase happens in the state.
That argument has been made for over a century, with respect to
mail order catalogs and such. It has never prevailed in Federal
Courts, and will not today.
> NY is now taxing all internet sales. I haven't done much purchasing
> since the law changed, but anyone selling to a consumer in NY is
> "required" to collect sales tax and remit to the NYS Treasury
> Department. I suppose that if they don't, it will still be left to
> the consumer, and I haven't looked in to how they plan to enforce, but
> the law came on line 6/1, IIRC.
New York has no authority to require any retailer outside New York
to do anything, with two exceptions. Amendment XXI prohibits
transport or import of alcohol into a state in violation of the laws
of the state, yielding control over such to the individual states.
And the Jenkins Act governing interstate distribution of
cigarettes (but not any other form of tobacco) requires reporting
on all sales to the state in which the buyer receives them. I
would have to look to see if the out-of-state seller must pay the
tax, but I think not. Just the reporting is onerous, though.
One may note that many states "require" residents to pay a "use
tax" or some such on goods purchased outside the state and brought
into the state. This has consistently been ruled a de facto
tariff by Federal Courts, and every time such a law is contested
in Federal Court the law (or that portion of it requiring such
payment of tax) is declared unconstitional and null and void.
If you are willing to declare such purchases and pay tax to your
state, you will get no thanks. If you do not, you may be
threatened with prosecution. If you continue to refuse, most
states do nothing but threaten. If they prosecute, you must present
your defense that such taxation is an unconstitional de facto
tariff, and appeal every decision against you until your case reaches
the Federal Courts. Once you are in Federal Court, you win, and
the state law will be struck down.
No cheers that this needs to be restated time and again.
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
Reality_Check© wrote:
> July 1, 2008
>
>
> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of
> cigarettes and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little
> cigars or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order
> or through the Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a
> licensed wholesale or retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont
> Attorney General William Sorrell.
I wonder what their definition of "little cigars" is.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Reality_Check© wrote:
> July 1, 2008
>
>
> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>
>
> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of
> cigarettes and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>
> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little
> cigars or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order
> or through the Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a
> licensed wholesale or retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont
> Attorney General William Sorrell.
I wonder what their definition of "little cigars" is.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
"btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote in message
news:6d4569Fp28hU1@mid.individual,net ...
> Reality_Check© wrote:
>> July 1, 2008
>>
>>
>> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>>
>>
>> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of
>> cigarettes and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>>
>> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little
>> cigars or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order
>> or through the Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a
>> licensed wholesale or retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont
>> Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
> I wonder what their definition of "little cigars" is.
Look down your pants ...
"btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol,com > wrote in message
news:6d4569Fp28hU1@mid.individual,net ...
> Reality_Check© wrote:
>> July 1, 2008
>>
>>
>> New law banning Internet cigarette sales starts today
>>
>>
>> MONTPELIER -- Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of
>> cigarettes and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
>>
>> It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little
>> cigars or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order
>> or through the Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont other than a
>> licensed wholesale or retail dealer or distributor, said Vermont
>> Attorney General William Sorrell.
>
> I wonder what their definition of "little cigars" is.
Look down your pants ...
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 03 Jul 2008, 20:09
-- deleted messages --
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 04 Jul 2008, 06:50
-- deleted messages --
Re: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6dch8mF1tu7jU2@mid.individual,net ...
>
> "Norm" <Normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:xnYbk.81211$gc5.7303@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Your freeedom to swing your fist has always ended at my nose. Your
>>>> freedom hasn't been limited only clarified. Nobody is preventing you
>>>> from doing anything you want to do, all that has changed is it is now
>>>> better defined WHERE you can do it.
>>>
>>> Bad example.
>>> There are licensed venues for the swinging of fists. Swinging of fists
>>> has not been banned in public for fear of secondary black eyes.
>>
>>
>> That's because technology exists to keep the swinging fists within a
>> controlled area. Attendees at the events and the staff of the venues are,
>> generally speaking, in very low danger of being contacted by said
>> swinging fists.
>> The same cannot be said of smoke which has been shown to not respect non
>> smoking demarcations and even in some cases actual walls.
>
> That is misleading.
> There are technologies available which render the issue trivial. I could
> install high-rate air filtration units or construct rooms with negative
> air pressure. No such alternatives are permissible under most bans.
Far easier and cheaper to simply kick you lowlife tobacco-sucking addict
outside to the filthy gutter where you belong.
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6dch8mF1tu7jU2@mid.individual,net ...
>
> "Norm" <Normgrant999@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:xnYbk.81211$gc5.7303@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Your freeedom to swing your fist has always ended at my nose. Your
>>>> freedom hasn't been limited only clarified. Nobody is preventing you
>>>> from doing anything you want to do, all that has changed is it is now
>>>> better defined WHERE you can do it.
>>>
>>> Bad example.
>>> There are licensed venues for the swinging of fists. Swinging of fists
>>> has not been banned in public for fear of secondary black eyes.
>>
>>
>> That's because technology exists to keep the swinging fists within a
>> controlled area. Attendees at the events and the staff of the venues are,
>> generally speaking, in very low danger of being contacted by said
>> swinging fists.
>> The same cannot be said of smoke which has been shown to not respect non
>> smoking demarcations and even in some cases actual walls.
>
> That is misleading.
> There are technologies available which render the issue trivial. I could
> install high-rate air filtration units or construct rooms with negative
> air pressure. No such alternatives are permissible under most bans.
Far easier and cheaper to simply kick you lowlife tobacco-sucking addict
outside to the filthy gutter where you belong.
Re: => Robert Wagner gets PUNK'd again -- VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:srhi-DC1F15.04270510072008@newsgroups,com cast,net ...
> In article <9m6b74lvq17mkd8m2c6qsuq0dh6l9ems3o@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jul 2008 01:34:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bola74lnd310qj04sc0qq0ucm8nq3185dr@4ax,com >,
>> >Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> >>On 09 Jul 2008 18:22:07 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <qse87451crdnv033tfvs91huc5r3jrk0bl@4ax,com >,
>> >>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> >>>>On 09 Jul 2008 01:29:34 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>In article <40u774l6msd5f9jevqgohnq71j7189nuho@4ax,com >,
>> >>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> >>>>>>On 08 Jul 2008 05:41:49 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
>> >>>>>>wrote:
>>
>> >Nor do I agree with your prediction smoking bans will be
>> >systematically repealed should they bow out. Smoking
>> >bans were enacted because smoker clout diminished with
>> >their numbers.
>>
>> Blacks are only 10% of the US population, half the number of smokers. Do
>> you
>> think they could be banned from public places?
>
> They were for many years, but this is unlike public smoking bans.
> Smokers are not banned from public places, only their lit cancer sticks
> are.
Way to ram it down his lying cancerous maw, Shawn.
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:srhi-DC1F15.04270510072008@newsgroups,com cast,net ...
> In article <9m6b74lvq17mkd8m2c6qsuq0dh6l9ems3o@4ax,com >,
> Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jul 2008 01:34:58 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <bola74lnd310qj04sc0qq0ucm8nq3185dr@4ax,com >,
>> >Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> >>On 09 Jul 2008 18:22:07 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <qse87451crdnv033tfvs91huc5r3jrk0bl@4ax,com >,
>> >>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> >>>>On 09 Jul 2008 01:29:34 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>In article <40u774l6msd5f9jevqgohnq71j7189nuho@4ax,com >,
>> >>>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>> >>>>>>On 08 Jul 2008 05:41:49 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson)
>> >>>>>>wrote:
>>
>> >Nor do I agree with your prediction smoking bans will be
>> >systematically repealed should they bow out. Smoking
>> >bans were enacted because smoker clout diminished with
>> >their numbers.
>>
>> Blacks are only 10% of the US population, half the number of smokers. Do
>> you
>> think they could be banned from public places?
>
> They were for many years, but this is unlike public smoking bans.
> Smokers are not banned from public places, only their lit cancer sticks
> are.
Way to ram it down his lying cancerous maw, Shawn.
