Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Wrong.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
Your grasp of logic is on a par with everything else. Progressives were the first to have confiscatory tax rates on cigarettes. The fact that some red states have piled on doesnt negate it. Nor do I see reports of people getting roughed up by law enforcement for selling lucys in Texas and elsewhere.It totally refutes your claim that cigarette taxes are a progressive thing which leads to smuggling cigarettes, and therefore progressives killed Garner.Gee that in no way refutes anything I wrote.Higher tax rate creates black market for cigarettes
The tax rate on cigarettes is so high in Texas that it is sparking a huge draw for illegal cigarettes creating a new kind of organized crime, according to experts.
Oops...
Next.
Raising cigarette taxes is a bipartisan thing which has caused smuggling to skyrocket in blue AND RED states. Sorry about that. You should have checked before echoing some idiot partisan hack you heard on the radio or TV.
That's what critical thinking is. You hear some hack say "cigarette taxes are a favorite of progressives", and you ask yourself, "Gee, I wonder if any red states have increased their cigarette taxes".
If you had done that, you would have found out the guy in your avatar raised cigarettes taxes so high that smuggling has skyrocketed in his state and you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself.
You would have found out the hack whose piss you drank was full of shit instead of just running to start a topic confirming you are a credulous parroting idiot.
You are well and truly a stupid shithead. But I'll let Mud lay it out for you.I prefer to survive surrounded by pile of hand-grenade pins.You gonna commit suicide by cop?
When Liberal Democrats gain enough control of society/Government to ban firearms I will die in a pile of brass, when they come for my guns and spend the rest of Eternity in Valhalla.
When you pull the pin from the hand grenade don't forget which one you're supposed to throw.
That goes without saying.
You're no doubt a hardened veteran of many video game campaigns.
Wrong.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Hello? Dubya has never been in office in Floriduh.Bush is a Leftist and this thread is arguing that the high tax Left is responsible for Eric Gardner's death. So what point are you trying to make?Nope. We have a Republican governor and have had for years. And the Floriduh legislature has been controlled by Republicans for as long as I can remember.Floriduh is totally controlled by Republicans. The ciggie tax is a state tax.There are leftists in red states too and they often get their way because they control the large cities. It's Leftists who support these taxes no matter what state it's in.
Nice fail on your part.
That is totally bullshit of course.
I see you are another nutter that claims someone is a leftist if it suits your stupid argument.
Dismissed.
Why don't you calm down? I was talking about Jeb, and anyway it was a mistake because he was no longer governor when the cigarette tax was hiked in 2009. My bad.Hello? Dubya has never been in office in Floriduh.Bush is a Leftist and this thread is arguing that the high tax Left is responsible for Eric Gardner's death. So what point are you trying to make?Nope. We have a Republican governor and have had for years. And the Floriduh legislature has been controlled by Republicans for as long as I can remember.Floriduh is totally controlled by Republicans. The ciggie tax is a state tax.There are leftists in red states too and they often get their way because they control the large cities. It's Leftists who support these taxes no matter what state it's in.
Nice fail on your part.
That is totally bullshit of course.
I see you are another nutter that claims someone is a leftist if it suits your stupid argument.
Dismissed.
OMFG! You can't sell loosies to children!Wrong.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
No. You are wrong.
Tobacco Retailers and the FDA
Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.*
On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
* This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit: www.fda.gov/BreakTheChain.
- Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older. **
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face-to-face exchange. ***
- Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
- Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
- Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called "loosies".
- Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
- Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a "qualified adult-only facility."
- Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).
** Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
*** The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self-service displays are allowed in adult-only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states....
Retailer Training and Enforcement
You are well and truly a stupid shithead. But I'll let Mud lay it out for you.I prefer to survive surrounded by pile of hand-grenade pins.When Liberal Democrats gain enough control of society/Government to ban firearms I will die in a pile of brass, when they come for my guns and spend the rest of Eternity in Valhalla.
When you pull the pin from the hand grenade don't forget which one you're supposed to throw.
That goes without saying.
You're no doubt a hardened veteran of many video game campaigns.
. I'm getting too old to be running around out in the woods.Yeah but I'll bet you've had some training in your time.You are well and truly a stupid shithead. But I'll let Mud lay it out for you.I prefer to survive surrounded by pile of hand-grenade pins.
When you pull the pin from the hand grenade don't forget which one you're supposed to throw.
That goes without saying.
You're no doubt a hardened veteran of many video game campaigns.
I have to admit
It was a name Army drill sergeants called trainees who were slow on the uptake....because it was forbidden to call us derogatory names such as stupid.Who knew? One could say I'm rocket speed... maybe even RocKetMan.It's also a noun, high-speed. A name you are humorously living up to.high-speed is an adjective, you need a noun to go with it.It is English, high-speed.
OMFG! You can't sell loosies to children!Wrong.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
No. You are wrong.
Tobacco Retailers and the FDA
Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.*
On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
* This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit: www.fda.gov/BreakTheChain.
- Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older. **
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face-to-face exchange. ***
- Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
- Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
- Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called "loosies".
- Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
- Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a "qualified adult-only facility."
- Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).
** Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
*** The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self-service displays are allowed in adult-only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states....
Retailer Training and Enforcement
Thanks for proving that Obama had nothing to do with the loosie law in NYC.
OMFG! You can't sell loosies to children!Wrong.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
No. You are wrong.
Tobacco Retailers and the FDA
Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.*
On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
* This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit: www.fda.gov/BreakTheChain.
- Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older. **
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face-to-face exchange. ***
- Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
- Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
- Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called "loosies".
- Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
- Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a "qualified adult-only facility."
- Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).
** Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
*** The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self-service displays are allowed in adult-only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states....
Retailer Training and Enforcement
Thanks for proving that Obama had nothing to do with the loosie law in NYC.
Yeah but I'll bet you've had some training in your time.You are well and truly a stupid shithead. But I'll let Mud lay it out for you.When you pull the pin from the hand grenade don't forget which one you're supposed to throw.
That goes without saying.
You're no doubt a hardened veteran of many video game campaigns.
I have to admit
Then it's time for a lawsuit. If what you say is true, there are already attorneys talking to the Gardner family.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
I believe you.Yeah but I'll bet you've had some training in your time.You are well and truly a stupid shithead. But I'll let Mud lay it out for you.That goes without saying.
You're no doubt a hardened veteran of many video game campaigns.
I have to admit
Training and actual experience.
If one is a retailer, perhaps. I read the actual law and the part about loosies was under what is forbidden to sell to children.OMFG! You can't sell loosies to children!Wrong.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
No. You are wrong.
Tobacco Retailers and the FDA
Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.*
On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
* This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit: www.fda.gov/BreakTheChain.
- Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older. **
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face-to-face exchange. ***
- Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
- Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
- Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called "loosies".
- Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
- Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a "qualified adult-only facility."
- Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).
** Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
*** The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self-service displays are allowed in adult-only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states....
Retailer Training and Enforcement
Thanks for proving that Obama had nothing to do with the loosie law in NYC.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your cognitive abilities. The FDA forbids selling loose cigarettes to anyone.
Then it's time for a lawsuit. If what you say is true, there are already attorneys talking to the Gardner family.I live in a Red state. I am against nanny state laws. We have nanny state laws here.Again, it's immaterial about the ciggie taxes. The cops had no right to mishandle this man and should all be fired.
Then you should be a strong advocate of downsizing the scope of government. Far too many petty laws and regulations are classified as crimes if one violates them, which then triggers police force. And many of these are for things for which the government has no business in playing Nanny, but does so anyway and elevates to criminal status.
Excerpts from an excellent piece on The Right Not To Be Punished:
On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.
(snip)
Husak suggests as one solution interpreting the Constitution to include a right not to be punished. This in turn would mean that before a legislature could criminalize a particular behavior, it would have to show a public interest significantly higher than for most forms of legislation.
He offers the example of a legislature that decides “to prohibit -- on pain of criminal liability -- the consumption of designated unhealthy foods such as doughnuts.” The “rational basis test” usually applied by courts when statutes face constitutional challenge would be easily met. In short, under existing doctrine, the statute would be a permissible exercise of the police power. But if there existed a constitutional right not to be punished, the statute would have to face a higher level of judicial scrutiny, and might well be struck down -- not because of a right to eat unhealthy foods, but because of a right not to be criminally punished by the state except in matters of great importance.
Of course, activists on the right and the left tend to believe that all of their causes are of great importance. Whatever they want to ban or require, they seem unalterably persuaded that the use of state power is appropriate.
That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.
Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
But I don't care how many stupid laws you all bring up. THE COPS DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TOUCH THIS MAN PERIOD.
If one is a retailer, perhaps. I read the actual law and the part about loosies was under what is forbidden to sell to children.OMFG! You can't sell loosies to children!Wrong.Actually, they did. The fact that the Obama Administration made selling loose cigarattes a CRIME turned it into a police matter. This is the Real Issue in this tragic event: everyone can be turned into Eric Garner because an unknowable number of petty laws and regulations turn banal behavior into Criminal Offenses.
No. You are wrong.
Tobacco Retailers and the FDA
Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.*
On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
* This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit: www.fda.gov/BreakTheChain.
- Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older. **
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face-to-face exchange. ***
- Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
- Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
- Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called "loosies".
- Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
- Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a "qualified adult-only facility."
- Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).
** Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
*** The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self-service displays are allowed in adult-only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states....
Retailer Training and Enforcement
Thanks for proving that Obama had nothing to do with the loosie law in NYC.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your cognitive abilities. The FDA forbids selling loose cigarettes to anyone.
Mr. Garner was not a retailer, the law did not apply to him.
Yep. Obama nor any laws passed at the federal level had nothing to do with Garner.If one is a retailer, perhaps. I read the actual law and the part about loosies was under what is forbidden to sell to children.OMFG! You can't sell loosies to children!Wrong.
No. You are wrong.
Tobacco Retailers and the FDA
Do you sell tobacco products? Then you must comply with these federal laws.*
On June 22, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a rule that restricts the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents. The rule is required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and is intended to protect kids by making tobacco products less accessible and attractive to them.
* This is only a summary of the laws. For the full list of federal laws, visit: www.fda.gov/BreakTheChain.
- Check photo ID of everyone appearing under age 27 who attempts to purchase cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco to anyone age 18 or older. **
- Only sell cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco in a direct, face-to-face exchange. ***
- Do NOT break open cigarette or smokeless tobacco packages to sell products in smaller amounts.
- Do NOT sell cigarette packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.
- Do NOT sell single cigarettes, also called "loosies".
- Do NOT give away free samples of cigarettes.
- Do NOT give away free samples of smokeless tobacco except from a "qualified adult-only facility."
- Do NOT sell flavored cigarettes or flavored cigarette tobacco (other than menthol).
** Retailers must also follow state tobacco laws, even if they are more restrictive. For example, in some states the minimum age is 19.
*** The sale of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco through vending machines and self-service displays are allowed in adult-only facilities where no person younger than 18 is permitted to enter. Please note that tobacco product vending machines are banned in some states....
Retailer Training and Enforcement
Thanks for proving that Obama had nothing to do with the loosie law in NYC.
Your reading comprehension is as poor as your cognitive abilities. The FDA forbids selling loose cigarettes to anyone.
Mr. Garner was not a retailer, the law did not apply to him.
Actually state and local governments can augment or pass stricter laws, which NYC has.
