Prohibition vs PACT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • chadizzy1
    Member
    • May 2009
    • 7432

    Prohibition vs PACT

    From Wikipedia, a brief paragraph about how Prohibition was repealed

    As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, especially in the big cities, "Repeal" was eagerly anticipated. On March 23, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of "3.2 beer" (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The original Volstead Act had defined "intoxicating beverage" as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[1] Upon signing the amendment, Roosevelt made his famous remark; "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[14] The Cullen-Harrison Act became law on April 7, 1933, and on April 8, 1933, Anheuser-Busch, inc. sent a team of Clydesdale horses to deliver a case of Budweiser to the White House. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed on December 5, 1933 with ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. Despite the efforts of Heber J. Grant and the LDS Church, a Utah convention helped ratify the 21st Amendment.[15] While Utah can be considered the deciding 36th state to ratify the Amendment and make it law, the day Utah passed the Amendment, both Pennsylvania and Ohio passed it as well.

    Do you think if the Senecas united with the Harm Reduction people, along with those who buy cigarettes/smokeless online they could raise a big enough fuss for this to happen?

    The reason I bring this up is because I never rule anything out. I'm sure at the beginning of Prohibition people had the "We're f***ed" mentality like we have right now. But there's always hope, right?
  • Jwalker
    Member
    • May 2010
    • 1067

    #2
    Yes but remember that It took 14 years and there were steps leading up to prohibition with most states passing laws banning alcohol and several taxing it at high rates.

    Comment

    • pcguy
      Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 139

      #3
      PACT had very little to do with keeping any tobacco from the hands of children. It had a whole lot to do with funneling more $$$ into federal and state coffers. We face an unprecedented fiscal crisis in our current goverment system. Until this is solved, we all face more taxes in places never before seen, and at unprecedented levels. Question is, how far are we going to let our government go?

      Comment

      • danielan
        Member
        • Apr 2010
        • 1514

        #4
        No.

        I doubt this would even really help us if they win. Making the Seneca collect/report taxes for sales to the US might get overturned - since they are a sovereign nation. I doubt the mailing prohibition will go away even for the Seneca. I doubt any provisions will go away for non-Seneca retailers.

        Even if this gets rolled back...The next "fix" will be worse. What if the government just convinced UPS to stop all tobacco deliveries (except cigars)?

        Comment

        • deadpool99
          Member
          • Jun 2010
          • 56

          #5
          I see prohibition somewhere down the road. There is too much of a negative vibe attached to tobacco for it not happen. Its like when all the RYO makers switched their products to "pipe tobacco" to avoid the taxes on RYO that Philip Morris had installed in the bill. What does the government do? They decide they would just slam a massive tax on all pipe tobacco so that they get their missing tax dollars. This hasn't happened yet. But I dont see them taking the proper path and mandating that there is a difference between RYO and pipe tobacco and forcing the RYO makers to label their product according to what it really is.

          There is just a massive amount of bias against tobacco. This bias overrides the truth about things like reduced harm products such as snus. They lump it all together. Also this whole idea of using the government to force social changes through legislation is a very slippery slope. Just say that tobacco is flat out banned tomorrow. The whole infrastructure that the anti's have built up and the money they make being against tobacco will be leveled at some other perceived social ill. More than likely alcohol consumption. All these people who like to go to bars and not have to put up with smoking better get ready for a ban on drinking because it will happen. The Anti movement is beast that needs to feed. And as soon as the day comes around that they can not make a buck fighting tobacco well all us boozers and lovers of things like Hardee's thick burgers and such better watch out.

          I can see it now. Got to the store and pick up a bag of chips and oh wow look at that a warning label emblazoned over half the front of the bag "Eating junk food kills and makes you ugly"

          If the government where smart which we know its not they should also tax the Anti movement to fund the kids like they do us!

          Rant over.

          Comment

          • chadizzy1
            Member
            • May 2009
            • 7432

            #6
            It will either go one of two ways.

            In Idiocracy, Brawndo buys the FDA so they can replace water with Gatorade.

            Or, in Demolition Man (a really cool Stallone movie), all things rules not good for you are bad, and you get fined for everything bad you do including swearing.

            Comment

            • ChaoticGemini
              Member
              • Jun 2010
              • 564

              #7
              Originally posted by chadizzy1 View Post
              ... you get fined for everything bad you do including swearing.
              There's already laws for that http://www.legislature.mi.gov

              Comment

              • texastorm
                Member
                • Jul 2010
                • 386

                #8
                The USPS mail prohibition is probably not going to be repealed. But I cannot understand why they are banning postal mailings. I would not mind so much driving to my local post office branch to show my ID and pick up my next package of snus, IF I could get it through the USPS. Why they had to go with a total ban I cannot for the life of me figure out. I dont mind so much paying the taxes, although from a business standpoint I can see how that is nearly impossible to do county by county, city by city, as so many communities are bringing their own taxes into the mix.

                Comment

                • chadizzy1
                  Member
                  • May 2009
                  • 7432

                  #9
                  I wonder how much $ USPS lost from this?

                  It wasn't enough for them to raise a fuss or anything, but I bet it was a nice little chunk.

                  Comment

                  • GoVegan
                    Member
                    • Oct 2009
                    • 5603

                    #10
                    Originally posted by texastorm View Post
                    The USPS mail prohibition is probably not going to be repealed. But I cannot understand why they are banning postal mailings. I would not mind so much driving to my local post office branch to show my ID and pick up my next package of snus, IF I could get it through the USPS. Why they had to go with a total ban I cannot for the life of me figure out. I dont mind so much paying the taxes, although from a business standpoint I can see how that is nearly impossible to do county by county, city by city, as so many communities are bringing their own taxes into the mix.
                    I have to agree with you. Why not let USPS ship tobacco as long as they check ID when the person picks up their package? They could have even been smart about this and let USPS charge an extra fee for this service which would help USPS financially. The problem is that the PACT Act was not written to keep children from buying tobacco. It was written to kill off the Indians who were making a good living selling smokes. This bill was essentially sponsored by Phillip Morris and the mini market trade groups and was written in a language that would benefit them. It is the cigarette makers and Apu who are killing snus.

                    Comment

                    • c.nash
                      Banned Users
                      • May 2010
                      • 3511

                      #11
                      Originally posted by ChaoticGemini View Post
                      There's already laws for that http://www.legislature.mi.gov
                      Wow.. Really?


                      Some of the laws in this country are ridiculous. What happened to free speech? Free trade? etc.

                      Comment

                      • c.nash
                        Banned Users
                        • May 2010
                        • 3511

                        #12
                        Originally posted by chadizzy1 View Post
                        I wonder how much $ USPS lost from this?

                        It wasn't enough for them to raise a fuss or anything, but I bet it was a nice little chunk.
                        I believe I read somewhere they they lost a decent amount of revenue, something like 40 million or so.

                        Comment

                        • snusgetter
                          Member
                          • May 2010
                          • 10903

                          #13
                          Originally posted by chadizzy1 View Post
                          I wonder how much $ USPS lost from this?

                          It wasn't enough for them to raise a fuss or anything, but I bet it was a nice little chunk.
                          The last I heard: $30-40 million a year from the Indians alone --
                          a godsend for a USPS that's trying very hard to go out of business.
                          (Privatization was the initial impetus when it was extremely profitable
                          but now no one is interested in a failing business!!) Such is free-enterprise.

                          Just visit http://postalmag.com/ for the skinny on some of the latest
                          postal shenanigans (and other postal news)...

                          And lest ye forget: USPS was very profitable (without taxpayer assistance)
                          until congress, in 2006, mandated that USPS prepay its pension fund,
                          something no other agency is required to do.

                          Comment

                          • sgreger1
                            Member
                            • Mar 2009
                            • 9451

                            #14
                            What we need to lift this faux prohibition is to set up an organized crime family and start wrecking shit and burning down cities. Lol. Then again, mexican cartels kill cops just to sell weed and weed isnt legal yet.

                            Comment

                            • texastorm
                              Member
                              • Jul 2010
                              • 386

                              #15
                              Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
                              ....weed isnt legal yet.
                              Yet being the operative word there. Coming soon to a smokeshop near you cannibus snus! However any tobacco is illegal and you will be arrested for carrying.

                              Wouldn't it be odd for weed to be legal and tobacco to be banned? I would have to reorganize my entire criminal empire! (which so far is 3 speeding tickets, but I am growing year by year!)

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X