U.S.A: PACT Act 2009

[Stubby]

This is one link

View a Hearing or Meeting

And another, though this one is not updated for the Nov. 19 committee meeting

WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1147, The PACT Act

[olderthandirt]

This is one link

View a Hearing or Meeting

And another, though this one is not updated for the Nov. 19 committee meeting

WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1147, The PACT Act

Thanks Stubby
I'd been all over the Senate Judiciary site, but this was one avenue I'd obviously missed. So much to learn...

[Bill Godshall]

Since Congress is likely to enact the PACT Act (as the Senate approved Kohl's PACT bill several years ago, but it didn't get approved by the House), I suggest that it would be best to urge members of Congress to exempt smokeless tobacco products from the legislation.

Unlike the massive and growing problem of cigarette tax evasion, there is very little if any tax evasion or smuggling of smokeless tobacco products.

And since cigarettes are 100 times deadlier than smokeless tobacco products, there is no public health need to apply the PACT Act to smokeless tobacco products.

Although the FDA doesn't now classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products, if they do (as I've been urging the agency to), e-cigarettes would probably be considered a smokeless tobacco product (not a cigarette or cigar).

Ironically, there is far more tax evasion for cigars than for smokeless tobacco products. But cigars are exempt from the PACT Act.

[olderthandirt]

Since Congress is likely to enact the PACT Act (as the Senate approved Kohl's PACT bill several years ago, but it didn't get approved by the House), I suggest that it would be best to urge members of Congress to exempt smokeless tobacco products from the legislation.

Unlike the massive and growing problem of cigarette tax evasion, there is very little if any tax evasion or smuggling of smokeless tobacco products.

And since cigarettes are 100 times deadlier than smokeless tobacco products, there is no public health need to apply the PACT Act to smokeless tobacco products.

Although the FDA doesn't now classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products, if they do (as I've been urging the agency to), e-cigarettes would probably be considered a smokeless tobacco product (not a cigarette or cigar).

Ironically, there is far more tax evasion for cigars than for smokeless tobacco products. But cigars are exempt from the PACT Act.

Thanks Bill! Now there's a logical, reasonable slant I can work into my letters I hadn't considered.

Funny about the cigars. I stopped into a new cigar shop a few hours ago to see if he might carry snus or snuff. No, he didn't, but we did get to talking about this legislation and similar, and oh my but the store proprietor was avid, mad, angry. The picture of a man spitting nails!

[ACM]

Although I do believe it is a somewhat futile effort, I sent the following letter to my U.S. Senators to voice my opinion of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 (S.1147). I would encourage everyone to write a similar letter to their Senators as well. This law cannot be allowed to pass. Feel free to copy my letter exactly or alter it as you see fit. If enough people write, MAYBE we'll be heard.

Dear Sen. ___________:

I am writing to ask you not to pass the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 (“PACT Act”) (S.1147) when it comes up for a vote in the Senate. This is clearly a wrongheaded law that is intended only to preserve the tax revenue collected through unfair and excessive taxes that have, over the years, been applied to cigarettes and tobacco products. While it might be presented to the American people as a way to ensure that tobacco products do not fall into the hands of minors, the reality is that few, if any, minors have the means to make internet or mail-order purchases of tobacco products. It is not a law to protect minors. It is a law to protect tax revenue. And it is unfair to legal, adult smokers who would hope to purchase a potentially life-saving alternative to tobacco products.

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are an arguably safer tobacco-free alternative for nicotine addicted individuals. Currently, they are only widely available through internet purchases and must be shipped by UPS, FedEd, or the USPS. They are not currently approved by the FDA, but are likely to be classified in the near future as "tobacco products". If that happens, they would fall under the umbrella of this law, and they would effectively be banned from the marketplace.

I propose that the right course of action is to reject this law and propose a new one that would require all internet tobacco retailers to collect whatever sales tax is levied by various state and local governments on tobacco products. That would enable people to purchase items like electronic cigarettes, have them shipped via the USPS, and still preserve tax revenue. In fact, forcing electronic cigarette retailers to collect sales tax would increase such revenue, as sales tax is not currently collected on most of these sales.

Barring that course of action, I would suggest that you propose to amend the law to clearly omit electronic cigarettes and their related accessories, refill kits, and nicotine cartridges.

Please do not force American citizens who have been unable to beat their nicotine addiction, but who no longer actually smoke, to return to using cigarettes, cigars, or other tobacco products. The passage of this law will, in effect, force many to do just that, putting their health, and their lives, at risk. Big-tobacco has long been supported by the U.S. government, and continues to be. That support makes the U.S. government complicit in the hundreds of thousands of smoking-related deaths that occur in America each year. Since it is unlikely that cigarettes themselves will ever be banned in this country, it is now the responsibility of government to ensure that safer alternatives to cigarettes remain available to its citizens. E-cigs are one such alternative. Please do not take this option away from your constituents.

Do not allow the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 to pass.

Thank you.

[dee5]

ACM, first, welcome to the forum! I really like your letter and thank you for permission to use it word for word because I will probably do just that. It says everything that I would want to say and then some and is very nicely phrased. Thank you for this contribution!

[LoBo]

here is the response I got from kohl on the issue. blah. how about erasing the black market with affordable cigs. lower taxes you morons...I hate government

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value the correspondence I get from people back home in Wisconsin, and welcome the opportunity to address your concerns.



I appreciate knowing your thoughts regarding the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act of 2009, which I introduced on May 21st to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to crack down on black market tobacco selling. Cigarette smuggling is a multibillion dollar a year phenomenon, and it is getting worse. Cigarette trafficking, including the illegal sale of tobacco products over the internet, costs states billions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. It is estimated that states lose $5 billion in revenues due to illegal tobacco sales.



As you may know, cigarette trafficking has also developed into a popular, and highly profitable, means of generating revenue for criminal and terrorist organizations. In addition, illicit cigarette trafficking is a major activity of organized crime. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) had six active tobacco smuggling investigations. In 2005, that number swelled to 452. Today there are more than 400 open cases. Illegal tobacco vendors around the world evade detection by conducting transactions over the internet, and then shipping their illegal products throughout the United States to consumers. Just a few years ago, there were fewer than 100 vendors selling cigarettes online. Today, approximately 500 vendors sell illegal tobacco products over the internet.



The PACT Act would combat such unlawful activities by expanding and improving law enforcement's oversight of interstate cigarette trafficking. The legislation would prohibit the United States Postal Service from delivering tobacco products, and increase the criminal penalty for illegal cigarette trafficking from a misdemeanor to a felony. The bill would also create a substantial civil penalty for violations, including violations of cigarette sale reporting requirements and state tobacco tax laws.



Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to do so in the future.

[JerryRM]

LoBo, here is the translation. "My mind is already made up, I'm voting for it and your opinion means nothing to me, but just to appear that I really care what you think, I am sending you a copy of the form letter that I send to everyone who contacts me about this".

[LoBo]

LoBo, here is the translation. "My mind is already made up, I'm voting for it and your opinion means nothing to me, but just to appear that I really care what you think, I am sending you a copy of the form letter that I send to everyone who contacts me about this".

oh I know....I know. I had no clue kohl was the author of the bill till today. I love how terrorism is being thrown into the mix....so every penny the government can't tax is going straight to terrorists....right. LIES

[JLeigh]

I can't tell you how many times I've contact both Kohl and Feingold. Neither one of them give a tinker's d*mn about what I think unless they already agree with me.

There are only a couple of things that *may* stop this bill for awhile --the Native Americans, and also the fact that some political approval ratings are starting to slide. The Native Americans are, of course, wanting this bill stopped because it will effectively halt one of their main sources of revenue.