The Bill That Wouldn't Die - aka PACT Act

[LaZeR]

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't clearly make my point being that the former H.R. 1676: PACT Act was overwhelming passed through the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES with barely an objection just earlier this year in May 2009. If you read H.R. 1676: PACT Ac it seems to be basically the same language that will effect our shipments of snus, requiring you be @ home to give a signature, all the added taxes, ect...

So my point being for whatever they are jerking around with yet another revision being the current PACT 1147 and restarting the process through committee, based on the previous votes on the former bill, I think we can safely assume there won't be enough objection to even make this thing close. These elected assholes are going to zing this one on through since it "helps fight terrorism... :roll: " & gives the fed more of our hard earned $$$ in taxes. - Don'tcha know.... :evil:

[srhoades2talk]

Politicians are like diapers...they both stink and are full of shit. :evil:

[Kvlt]

I still think we won't have a problem shipping them. Claim them as something else, and they probably won't check. I've gotten a switchblade in the mail (through customs) listed as "Steel fork samples".

It's still bullshit, and I don't know what t think of it. Seems right when I get back into snus this shit happens (again)...

EDIT: Did Ron Paul vote it down?

[sagedil]

Correct, Ron Paul voted no

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-287

[Mohave]

EDIT: Sorry, just now saw the later posts after the first page of the thread. This is probably redundant to things others will have already posted.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill out (approved it in committee) sending it to a floor vote for final action by the full Senate. No date is scheduled yet for a floor vote. One can hope that pending "health reform" proposals keep the Senate floor tied up for at least six months. One can hope. Hope is good. To actually expect that is another thing.

And if I am not mistaken, once the session ends, the bill gets kicked back, so the process starts all over. And since next year is an election year, I would *like* to think that this will get overlooked.

This much is correct as stated, but "the session" in question is not the calendar year. A session of Congress only ends when the new Congress is seated, which occurs only in January of 2011, after the next election. It can be passed and signed into law as late as December of 2010 without starting over. Much of what becomes law under this session of Congress will do so in calendar year 2010 after beginning the process in 2009. Though not much usually happens after about midsummer of an election year because the members usually recess to leave town to campaign for themselves, there is, unfortunately, still a lot of time, especially for a bill that has no effective opposition and has already passed the House. But one can hope. It's good to have hope.

It is possible that it could end up being an unintentionally good thing that the Senate committee amended the wording, even if the new language is worse on the face of it, because that means it will have to at least go to a House/Senate conference committee rather than straight to the President's desk for signature, and the long shot chance of this sucker running out of time is therefore increased. I'm not suggesting that's likely at this point, but the possibility is greater than if it had come out of the Senate committee "clean" in exactly the same form as that which already passed the House.

[RRK]

A lot of good information in there. Good post.

[Snusdog]

According to the new law, what is the definition of "cigar". Have they defined it or do they merely assume the definition. Because unless it is defined or there is an official definition specifically stated by say the Tobacco and Fire arms agency, then I am presently enjoying a very nice tin of Toque fine cut cigar. And you will have to spend a whole lot of money in court somewhere to say that it is in fact not what I am enjoying at all.

Imagine a court room. The lawyer for snus and snuff stands and holds up a cigar. What is this he asks? If they cannot tell or say with certainty then they cannot say or tell with certainty that what we are selling is in fact not the same thing. We win. The category of cigar is non-determined and thus non-exclusive.

If they say, “It’s a cigar” Then our wily lawyer remove a pair of scissors from his brief case cuts the cigar in half and asks, “if I take this cigar and cut it in half to share with a friend, is it still a cigar? What if I quarter it, is it still a cigar then?

Now he removes a Tobacco grinder from his brief case and grinds one of the cigar quarters into flake consistency asking, “ If I chop it up is it still a cigar? What if I grind it into fine powder?”

Then he smiles and says, my simple question to the court is this: at what point did the cigar stop being a cigar and become something else? And what is the measurable quantifiable nature of that change?

Now the nature of that change can’t be based on use or intended use, can it? Last I checked the main use of a cigar was taste and smell (not inhalation like a cigarette) Now this is important because, taste puts cigars clearly in the category of an oral tobacco while smell puts it clearly in the category of a nasal tobacco, which in turn brings us back to my question: when did the cigar cease being a cigar? Is the federal court about to make it law that you MUST SMOKE or your cigar is illegal? Is PACT then in reality a mandated backdoor smoking policy? Didn’t the major producers of smoking tobacco in this country support this bill?

It is the burden of the law makers to define what they mean by the laws they pass. It is not the responsibility of the constituency to guess or fill in what they mean.

Give me a labeling gun and some sticky paper and I will solve this whole ordeal in 15 minutes.

Chewing tobacco = loose leaf cigar
Snus = coarse cut cigar
Snuff = fine cut cigar

[texasmade]

well in that case i am enjoying a Dholakia medicated fine cut cigar and a Grovsnus coarse cut cigar *insert big **** you finger smiley face*

[Snusdog]

Oh and Sage my brother we can't forget you

Pipe tobacco = free form cigar


Make them tell us it is not and then legally quantify why?

[texasmade]

Oh and Sage my brother we can't forget you

Pipe tobacco = free form cigar


Make them tell us it is not and then legally quantify why?

that actually works since black and milds use pipe tobacco and are considered "cigars"

[Snusdog]

Oh and Sage my brother we can't forget you

Pipe tobacco = free form cigar


Make them tell us it is not and then legally quantify why?

that actually works since black and milds use pipe tobacco and are considered "cigars"

Great point :!:

[Mohave]

According to the new law, what is the definition of "cigar". Have they defined it or do they merely assume the definition. Because unless it is defined or there is an official definition specifically stated by say the Tobacco and Fire arms agency, then...

‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—The term ‘cigarette’ does not include a cigar (as defined in section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)..."

[texasmade]

(a) Cigar
''Cigar'' means any roll of tobacco wrapped in leaf tobacco or in
any substance containing tobacco (other than any roll of tobacco
which is a cigarette within the meaning of subsection


http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/...2._Definitions

im not gonna try and figure it out...but to me it seems like a cigar is anything that is tobacco and rolled in a tobacco leaf

[GoVegan]

PACT Act

That sounds like they are describing the General Tobacco Cuts that were being discussed in another thread! We might be in luck here.

[nhlpens]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/us-...-of-2009-s1147
Got that URL from the smokersoutletonline newsletter.