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 .........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.

 

[JerryRM]

The Native Americans will fight back and I mean that literally. They did a few years back when the state of New York tried to block shipments from leaving the reservations.

 

[oldlady]

Gee, I wonder how much revenue the states are losing owing to unemployment? Maybe our fearless leaders should be focusing on that issue instead?

I also wonder how much it will cost the taxpayer to enforce PACT?

 

[JerryRM]

Gee, I wonder how much revenue the states are losing owing to unemployment? Maybe our fearless leaders should be focusing on that issue instead?

I also wonder how much it will cost the taxpayer to enforce PACT?

I read somewhere that it's going to cost billions of dollars to enforce it, but not to worry, they will just raise our taxes to pay for it !!

 

[BobFromChicago]

Once again, our government that supposedly works for us is doing what they want and not what we want, big surprise, our forefathers warned us about big government, once they get a foothold then forget it, they are like a cancer and will ravage this country until it dies. And what do people say, "Don't vote them next time." It doesnt matter who you vote for, they are still politicians which is just another way of saying they are legal crooks. And it doesnt matter which party you vote for, all your doing is giving power to one set of criminals instead of another. Lewis Black said it best, "The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats suck, where as Republicans blow!" Once Governement got big, your freedoms that you believe that you have were systematically being underminded, you no longer have any freedom, just the illusion of freedom, for many that seems to be enough. Tell me why if you own a home and completely pay it off you still have to pay taxes on it every year? They say it's to support our public schools...and what a cracker jack job they're doing educating our young. And how is it if they work for us they can vote themselves a raise? If i went into work and told my boss that we all voted and your gonna give us a 15% raise i would be luaghed right out the door all the way to the unemployment line. But all these fat cat politicians puffing on their big giant cigars...notice how cigars were exempt from the bill...keep on doing what they want, because we my friends are nothing more than slaves to these .......s, i would say rise up and take arms but unfortunately since the government controls the military i don't think it would last very long. But write all the letters you want, send all the emails you can, call them until you are blue in the face if it makes you happy, in the end they are gonna do what they want anyway, you have no say in the matter.

 

[oldlady]

Bob,

You are completely correct to note that our government has been "captured" by the financial sector, the health insurance sector and the pharmaceuticals among others.

It seems pointless to bother, but I have written to both of my senators, although I just got my e-cig starter kit last week. Because I completely share your views on the Democrat vs. Republican dilemma, I got my membership card for the Libertarian party about a month ago.

I like the suggestion in this thread about mosquito repellant. If the FDA rules that e-cigs are drug delivery devices, could a company/distributor simply alter the ingredients a bit--say increase or decrease the PG--and relabel the juice as "memory enhancer" or something? The anti-smoking Gestapo would have to start all over, right? Similarly, if you sold the parts--batteries, cartomizers, atomizers, etc--separately none of them on its own would be "drug delivery" device. You have to have all the pieces together, right? More important, if the e-cigs are "drug delivery devices," why aren't syringes illegal?

From a legal perspective, I wonder whether such a repackaging approach could be used to buy time to file FDA paper work, conduct testing, etc.?

If any distributors do this, I hope they will be good enough to let us know the names and "intended uses" of the "new" products!

 

[Canute]

Was thinking today about the old conspiracy theories like the one about the fuel additive that would allow cars to get in excess of 100mpg with a simple carb adjustment but the oil companies supposedly bought the research and buried it. Always thought it was crap but the way this whole vaping thing is being approached by the feds definitely lends credence to at least the possibility of such things!

There is absolutely no doubt that we no longer have a government by the people and for the people! And vaping represents .01% of the evidence which contributes to that reality. Our grandparents had freedoms revoked in there day that our parents grew up not even considering because it was just part of life in America, our parents then saw freedoms revoked that have become so common place to us as to not even be discussion worthy, the freedoms we've lost in our lives will be commonplace to our children and you can bet the cycle will not end with them.

When in our nations history did it become ok for the government to tell us what we can do with our own bodies? Making sure that manufacturers have to clearly label ingredients I understand, illustrating the side effects of those ingredients I understand but telling us were too dumb to make decisions for ourselves is another thing. People need to first ask themselves (people referring to government officials, voters, non-voters...anyone) whether they have a right to forcefully impose their judgment upon others rather than simply hearing a proposal and say "ya, that's a good idea". I wouldn't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, however I would never presume to be so arrogant as to believe that simply because I feel that way that I am entitled to force my neighbor into wearing one!!! Personally I am, admittedly, a major homophobe but that doesn't give me the right to tell homosexuals that they can't live their lives the way they choose! (opening a can of worms I know but doing it intentionally as posts to follow will likely prove my point...and if not it's only because those people don't want to prove my point) The freaking list is endless. People our forefathers went to great lengths to try and ensure that we were all free to do whatever we wished so long as in doing so we didn't prevent another persons right to do the same! Think about it! The constitution was an attempt to ensure exactly that by covering all the loopholes that immigrants had seen exploited in their countries of origin. America is still "the great experiment". We are a young nation operating under an unproven system. Many empires existed far longer than ours and eventually fell. Usually due to internal collapse. Our government is filled with people who have good intentions. Unfortunately the system itself has been designed to ensure that all roads lead to the same destination. That destination is simply one in which 2% of the worlds population controls 50% of the worlds wealth. That destination has existed throughout history. Our forefathers tried to escape it and that 2% figured out how to twist their plan in order to keep them on the same old road. All while convincing the masses that it was for their own good and protection.

You really want to change things in this country? Start by changing a fundamental way of thinking within yourselves. Next time some guy in front of grocery store asks you to sign a petition in support of god knows what don't simply listen to what he says and say to yourself "ok I agree with that...where do I sign" but rather first ask yourself if you even have the right to impose that viewpoint on others regardless of which way you feel about it!!!!!! If we actually accomplished the changing of that mindset we may actually return (cause we have strayed a hell of a long way) to being the nation we like to fool ourselves into believing we still are! And we need to return to a belief in personal accountability. The helmet analogy for example is based upon the fact that if the guy not wearing a helmet cracks his head open that all of our insurance premiums will suffer due to his irresponsibility therefore giving us all justification to "agree" that wearing a helmet is something we have the right to force someone to do. Rather than revoking a freedom what we should say is that if you choose to do xyz then you're on your own. Reality is most people reading this will say "that's extreme...we can't do that...this is America we can't allow someone to suffer". Well guess what? Until we stop being a bunch of bleeding hearts legislation will continue to be passed which inhibits your rights because someone somewhere believes that they are protecting you from yourself and thus have a right to do so. That applies to physically protecting you, financially protecting you and morally protecting you. It will be justified and, in effect, sold to you as the "right thing to do" and that it benefits you because you won't have to pay for that persons "mistake".

 

[CrazyTerrie11]

Im speechless, well not really...i have a lot to say its just all cuss words and the moderators would make my post look like this: ****** *********, they can **** a FLYING **** at the ***** etc. Im so ...... I could cry angry ****** tears

 

[bogiediver]

Folks - I didn't read all 14 pages of this thread, so I apologize up front if this (or something similar) was posted somewhere before.

I will also start out with - I'm not a lawyer, but I do have to interperet laws for my job... and I apologize for the length of this post...

*********************
There are two acts trying to control TOBACCO sales -
- one regarding mailing of (PACT Act of 2009)
- another regarding flavored tobaccos inticing minors to start smoking (The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009)

*********************
PACT Act of 2009

Two definitions taken from the full text of the bill:
‘(2) CIGARETTE-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘cigarette’--
‘(i) has the meaning given that term in section 2341 of title 18, United States Code; and
‘(ii) includes roll-your-own tobacco (as defined in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).

‘(12) SMOKELESS TOBACCO- The term ‘smokeless tobacco’ means any finely cut, ground, powdered, or leaf tobacco, or other product containing tobacco, that is intended to be placed in the oral or nasal cavity or otherwise consumed without being combusted.

The definition in section 2341 of title 18, United States Code, referred to above:
(1) the term “cigarette” means—
(A) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; and
(B) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in subparagraph (A);

Based on these and reading thru the rest of the bill – I would conclude that E-Cigs, their components and the nic liquid are not subject to this bill.

The bill is specifically referring to and dealing with ‘Tobacco’, in its leafy form (be it shredded, powdered, etc).

No where does the bill approach nic liquid being derived from tobacco. While derived from tobacco; it does not contain any tobacco.

While they use the term ‘tobacco products’ generally throughout the bill, it is only as defined in the definitions which is ‘cigarettes’ and ‘smokeless tobacco’.

*********************
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009

In here are these definitions:
*****
"cigarette" includes any product that―
(a) consists wholly or partly of cut, shredded or manufactured tobacco or of any tobacco derivative or substance, rolled up in paper; and
(b) is capable of being immediately used for smoking;

"smoking", with its grammatical variations, means puffing or inhaling and expelling the smoke of any tobacco product and includes the holding of, or control over, any ignited tobacco product;

"tobacco" means any product obtained from the leaf of the Nicotiana tobacum or Nicotiana rusticum plant or other related plants;

"tobacco product" means any tobacco or cigarette or any other product the main ingredient of which is tobacco and which is designed for human consumption in any manner;
*****

'Cigarette', 'smoking' and 'tobacco product' clearly are referring to the tobacco leaf products...

In this Act, only their definition of 'tobacco' could be extended to include nic liquid ("...any product obtained from ..."); but even that would be a major stretch in the context of the rest of the Act; or, for that matter, the dictionary definition...

*****
to-bac-co  /tuh-BAK-oh/
–noun, plural -cos, -coes.
1. any of several plants belonging to the genus Nicotiana, of the nightshade family, esp. one of those species, as N. tabacum, whose leaves are prepared for smoking or chewing or as snuff.
2. the prepared leaves, as used in cigarettes, cigars, and pipes.
3. any of various similar plants of other genera.
*****

The Act is targeted at true, actual cigarettes intended to be ignited, burned and the smoke inhaled.

*********************
I think we are giving them way too much credit for being that close to new technology…

JMHO

-bogie

 

[Vocalek]

Perhaps, as has been suggested, we should stop talking about e-cigs when we write to our legislators and instead prevail on them to remove "smokeless tobacco" from the bill. They would still get the taxes they want and we would preserve what we may desperately need as a back up should e-cigarettes and/or liquid become impossible to obtain.

The angle to take is that smokeless tobacco is a reduced harm product -- especially the low nitrosamine type of tobacco used in the Swedish snus -- and legislators need to support ways to help people quit smoking tobacco, even if they continue to use a different form of tobacco. Cite the TobaccoHarmReduction.org numbers that smokers who switch to Swedish snus reduce their risks by 99%.

 

[AngeLsLuv]

With all this mess, at least Discount Cigarettes : Cheap Cigarettes Online whom is a reservation in upstate NY that I bought my anaolgs for years, has been trying to fight this, since the Pact Act 2003... Right on the top of their site they have this:

URGENT! PACT Act - S. 1147 had been scheduled for consideration on Nov. 19th. THIS MAY BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION AND PURCHASE CIGARETTES ONLINE! Contact your State Represenatives now before it's too late! Click Here

Stupid Q:

What I don't get is this... As far as cigars, how has it been possible for all these tons of years for people to buy Cuban cigars when we've been in a fight with them??