Yes, you are absolutely correct. Most of us are participants in some form of black market. And the more onerous the regulations, the more participation. Basic market theory.
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Most of us are participants in some form of black market. And the more onerous the regulations, the more participation. Basic market theory.
People have written books about the amount of regulations in this country and how most people, unwittingly, commit multiple felonies a day
You, too?
You, too?
Well using that logic, by the title of this thread, we should assume there is literally an elephant standing in this room.
Maybe. Regardless, most of these things aren't pursued with civil actions, let alone criminal charges. Only in extreme cases, or cases where a court decides to make an example of someone, are these cases ever brought to court. The reality is that we need some sort of government system, lest we go back to the so called "State of Nature." Government has to be able to make laws to run society. It doesn't matter how many, or how few, regulations there are on the books. There are countries that run mostly on common law and work as well, or as poorly, as countries with extensively codified legal systems.
The fact is that if the government really doesn't want you to do something, they will probably prevent you from doing it, regardless of the presence or lack of regulation. In contrast, there are many situations where the government could do something to an individual, but doesn't for policy reasons, regardless of the law or the urging of private parties. Having a big or small government is a red herring. The key factor to successful government is having a stable, objective, and accountable system, including legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Last edited:
Heck, in NYC, you don't even have to sell a whole pack. Just being suspected of selling a loosie or two is enough to ruin your whole day.
Last edited:
The question that was asked is "Does a mother buying cigarettes for her underage son constitute a black market?" I'm pointing out that a mother buying cigarettes for her son is not a "market," and that therefore, this doesn't fit the definition of black market. Neither is it "traffic," so it doesn't fit the "illegal traffic or trade" definition either. I'm not sure why it matters whether that's a black market or not, because it wasn't my question, I'm just pointing out that the definitions don't fit. Do with that what you will.
No, I don't think providing cigarettes to her 11 year old son is black market. It should however be a crime. What the punishment should be for contributing to the delinquency of a minor is another subject. But it should be something IMHO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Crime, based on what?
Would you want parents to be treated as criminals for buying their kids: junk food (includes candy), vaping gear and 0 nic liquid, violent video games, computer devices which can be used for illegal/immoral activities?
Really? You simply can't be serious??????? Is junk food illegal for minors to consume? Are video games (violent or not) or computer devices, illegal for minors to use? Of course they aren't. But cigarettes are ILLEGAL for minors to use. Your analogy is simply 100% wrong. And you have to know it.
There's a difference between not the best parenting and providing a substance to a child that is regulated and illegal for them to use. I stand by my comment. That mother is contributing to the delinquency of a minor and she should be punished.
I would say it is a market, and is arguably black market at work. It would be part of the open market for her legal purchase and then once given to another person, would be treated as a gift from the open market. Yet, because the gift is being transferred to one that is forbidden from purchasing on the open market (which was the original point on this tangent), then all persons, who are minors, are either relying on gifts (if they are lucky) or sales (which would be black market) or possibly theft (which would be another crime). As a gift it is arguably black market and would be easy to show this if it weren't parent to child transaction. As it is parent to child, then it is in gray area that some (as shown on this thread) would see that as a crime, while others would say it is, and ought to be, entirely up to the parent how they choose to raise their child.
I intentionally chose items that were not illegal for minors use to see what your point was. I now see that it is based only on that it is illegal for minors (to purchase), and apparently nothing else.
I'm under impression that in at least some jurisdictions it is not illegal for minors to smoke while likely in those same jurisdictions it is illegal for them to purchase. The only way I can reconcile that is if they are given cigarettes from a parent or legal guardian.
So, then all parents who allow their child to sip / drink alcohol are all parents you may wish to see punished? And if there comes a day when soda, junk food, and what have you is put in full control of a nanny state, you would be on board with punishing those evil parents who chose to share / give these items to their offspring?
See, here's the problem I have with this. You say that this would be a sale on the open market, which then turns to a gift on the open market. This then turns into the black market by virtue of the person receiving the gift being under age. Besides the fact that this diminishes the concept of a black market, it also makes the term open market, a term that refers to the legitimate economic market, meaningless. If giving the cigarettes to a person of legal age on the open market constitutes a gift on the open market, as well as transaction on the open market, then any transfer of any type of property, however small, is also a gift or transaction, unless it's illegitimate, then it becomes the black market.
So, if my friend comes to my house and I give him a can of Coke, then we have just conducted some sort of transaction on the open market. Maybe it's me, but I can't see the point of thinking in terms of markets if this is all that they come down to. I'm curious if, under this definition, we can come up with any kind of interaction involving property that would not qualify as being on some sort of market.
They may not be most of the time, but it only takes one zealous prosecutor with an agenda to put someone behind bars for some highly obscure and ridiculous crime. In essence, it means that we are all at the mercy of the government's whim. That's not a good way to live.
Of course we are. We are all part of a social contract that requires us to give up our right to absolute freedom. In our country, this means that the government can deprive us of our liberty and property, assuming that we are given due process of law. I don't know if society can really function without this kind of government power. I don't disagree that there are times when the system isn't perfect, but I don't know if that makes it a bad way to live. As long as we have a well functioning government, these situations will be an anomaly.
It is not illegal for cigarettes (or alcohol) to be used by minors. It is only illegal for minors to purchase them. To suggest otherwise only serves to undermine any credibility you may have had to support your argument.
Perhaps in many states. But in California, for example, it is most definitely illegal for a minor to smoke a cigarette and there's a $75 fine if one is caught doing so. So, your blanket statement has perhaps as much credibility. It's unfortunate, IMHO, it's not illegal in all states. But my beef here has never been with the child. It has and will always be with the mother.
We found 40 states that prohibit minors from purchasing tobacco products. Thirty-one states prohibit minors from possessing tobacco in all circumstances. Five states, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, and Rhode Island, ban possessing tobacco in limited circumstances, such as in public or on school property. Only five states, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina, have no laws concerning minors and tobacco.
Cut and paste from some Internet page. Anyways, I found out as a teenager that Alabama does indeed have a law that prohibits minors from having cigarettes in possession.
Know your laws, or you might be violating them. Same applies to alcohol. The laws are in the books.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
In Arizona, it is indeed illegal for a minor (and even an adult under the age of 21) to drink alcohol.
Actually, according to this link, the number of states who prohibit the sale, possession and use of tobacco by minors is 42!
State Laws on Tobacco Control -- United States, 1998
So, armed with facts wjosephsimmons, it is you who should have looked up the laws before you questioned my credibility.
- Status
Similar threads
