Roll-Your-Own Cigarette Stores Owner Fighting Feds To Stay Open

There are 39 comments on the Patch.com story from Jul 24, 2012, titled Roll-Your-Own Cigarette Stores Owner Fighting Feds To Stay Open. In it, Patch.com reports that:

A A local businessman is vowing to fight a federal law that has led to the closure of his Tampa Bay area roll-your-own cigarette shops, including the Tobacco Road location on Brandon Boulevard.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Patch.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The truth

New Port Richey, FL

#1 Jul 24, 2012
Another case of big brother sticking it to the common folks.
Any one with an ounce of grey matter can see that the government cares more about corporations than the people, but to back a company that produces a product that they deem dangerous is absolutely ridiculous.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#2 Jul 25, 2012
Let's see, now, they made money by exploiting a loophole in the law, marketing tobacco as "pipe tobacco" to dodge the tax on "cigarette rolling tobacco" and letting their customers "choose" those brands to roll into cigarettes. Now, the loophole is being closed, and they are squalling that it isn't fair. Right.
"Oh, but we bought all this tobacco thinking we'd be able to continue to flout the law and now you expect us to eat the cost?"
Yeah, that would be about par for the pro-smoking movement.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#3 Jul 25, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
Yeah, that would be about par for the pro-smoking movement.
Pro-Smoking Movement???- Pops where did THAT one come from??

This quote from the article states EXACTLY how MOST of the Anti-smoking movements "dirty Deeds" are accomplished.

Bontempo was left fuming after a federal transportation bill signed into law earlier this month contained a small amendment targeting roll-your-own tobacco businesses. Under the new law roll-your-own stores are now termed “tobacco manufacturers.”

You see - the Anti's are WELL AWARE that the laws they get passed - ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY of the public - so they slip in a "rider" to a bill that is 'SURE" to be passed.

Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision that would not pass as its own bill.(Wikipedia)

So Pops - it had NOTHING to do with ANY LOOPHOLES - or ANYONE doing wrong - it is just the UNDERHANDED, DISHONEST, DISGUSTING way that you guys HAVE ALWAYS managed to enforce YOUR WILL on others!!

Truth and integrity - they mean ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to you and your "ilk"
Commonsenseman

Columbus, OH

#5 Jul 26, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
You see - the Anti's are WELL AWARE that the laws they get passed - ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY of the public - so they slip in a "rider" to a bill that is 'SURE" to be passed.
Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision that would not pass as its own bill.(Wikipedia)
If the majority of the public does not support thi, then it should be fairly easy to rally the majority of the public and get the regulation overturned.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#6 Jul 26, 2012
Commonsenseman wrote:
<quoted text>
If the majority of the public does not support thi, then it should be fairly easy to rally the majority of the public and get the regulation overturned.
Gee - that sounds simple enough - huh?

But YOU KNOW - JUST AS WELL AS I DO - that once the law or regulation is set into place - it is EXTREMELY hard - if not IMPOSSIBLE - to have it stricken.

YOUR "TEACHING" manuals even state:
"If AT ALL POSSIBLE - DON'T let it be brought to a "Popular Vote" - because it is more expensive - and would possibly LOSE" - Read this as "PROBABLY"

That is why the MAJORITY of the smoking bans across the country - were done in Legislature - rather than a "Vote of the people"
And that is why MOST of the laws and regulations - have to be "SNUCK" into other bills to be passed!

You see - most people don't realize that BESIDES the Billions that you receive (IN DIRECT "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" from the Pharmaceutical companies - You ALSO GET BILLIONS - DIRECTLY FROM THE TOBACCO COMPANIES - through the "Master Settlement Agreement"

This makes it REAL EASY to throw a LOT OF MONEY AROUND - lobbying and "Schmoozing" ALL OF YOU TRASH into Law!

While the "ProSmoking Movement" which I have heard refered to many times - is basically a bunch of smokers along with many nonsmokers - that are tired of seeing smokers treated as lepers and pariah - NO REAL MONEY backing them!
but then OCCASIONALLY when the tobacco companies DO CONTRIBUTE - the WHOLE GROUP - is "SKEWERED and ROASTED" - even while the Anti's are fighting CONSTANTLY over "THEIR SHARE" of tobacco monies.

When you begin to see the way it all works - IT REALLY IS PATHETIC AND SICK!
Commonsenseman

Columbus, OH

#8 Jul 27, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee - that sounds simple enough - huh?
But YOU KNOW - JUST AS WELL AS I DO - that once the law or regulation is set into place - it is EXTREMELY hard - if not IMPOSSIBLE - to have it stricken.
YOUR "TEACHING" manuals even state:
"If AT ALL POSSIBLE - DON'T let it be brought to a "Popular Vote" - because it is more expensive - and would possibly LOSE" - Read this as "PROBABLY"
That is why the MAJORITY of the smoking bans across the country - were done in Legislature - rather than a "Vote of the people"
And that is why MOST of the laws and regulations - have to be "SNUCK" into other bills to be passed!
You see - most people don't realize that BESIDES the Billions that you receive (IN DIRECT "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" from the Pharmaceutical companies - You ALSO GET BILLIONS - DIRECTLY FROM THE TOBACCO COMPANIES - through the "Master Settlement Agreement"
This makes it REAL EASY to throw a LOT OF MONEY AROUND - lobbying and "Schmoozing" ALL OF YOU TRASH into Law!
While the "ProSmoking Movement" which I have heard refered to many times - is basically a bunch of smokers along with many nonsmokers - that are tired of seeing smokers treated as lepers and pariah - NO REAL MONEY backing them!
but then OCCASIONALLY when the tobacco companies DO CONTRIBUTE - the WHOLE GROUP - is "SKEWERED and ROASTED" - even while the Anti's are fighting CONSTANTLY over "THEIR SHARE" of tobacco monies.
When you begin to see the way it all works - IT REALLY IS PATHETIC AND SICK!
You know, there may well be a highly organized, well funded "anti-smoker" conspiracy operating, but I am one person, not associated with any organization, who is simply opposed to being exposed to cigarette smoke. I voted for the smoking restrictions (I don't think you can call them bans until smoking is totally prohibited) in Ohio (yes, it did pass by popular vote) but had no part in the organizations that pushed for it.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#9 Jul 27, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
You see - the Anti's are WELL AWARE that the laws they get passed - ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY of the public...
Gallup polls now show "a majority of Americans (59%) support a ban on smoking in all public places for the first time since Gallup initially asked the question in 2001."

Guess that's another organization you'll have add to your anti-smoking conspiracy list...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148514/first-time-...
ItsAFact

Frederick, MD

#10 Jul 27, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Gallup polls now show "a majority of Americans (59%) support a ban on smoking in all public places for the first time since Gallup initially asked the question in 2001."
Guess that's another organization you'll have add to your anti-smoking conspiracy list...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148514/first-time-...
Wellm Old Fart, this Topix poll shows 67% oppose a smoling ban.
Guess that's another organization you'll have add to your pro-smoking conspiracy list...
http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T1L...
ItsAFact

Frederick, MD

#11 Jul 27, 2012
smoking
Joe Camel

Miami, FL

#12 Jul 27, 2012
The Sturgeon General has determined the use of tobacco products to be a cause of uncontrollable rectal drip.
Its called

Winnipeg, Canada

#14 Jul 27, 2012
Joe Camel wrote:
The Sturgeon General has determined the use of tobacco products to be a cause of uncontrollable rectal drip.
Its called ItsAFact- osis
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#15 Jul 27, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Gallup polls now show "a majority of Americans (59%) support a ban on smoking in all public places for the first time since Gallup initially asked the question in 2001."
Guess that's another organization you'll have add to your anti-smoking conspiracy list...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148514/first-time-...
Yea - This is EXACTLY WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THE ANTI's

the TITLE loudly proclaims what they want you to believe - but it's a different story "in the small print" - Did you actually read it??

"Gallup did not ask Americans this year about bans on smoking in specific venues such as restaurants, bars, hotels, and workplaces.
However, data on such policies from Gallup's research last July showed that,
when given the options of a total ban,
setting aside certain areas for smokers,
or no restrictions at all,
Americans were generally less likely to choose the total ban and more likely to select the "set aside" idea.
The one exception to this pattern was restaurants, in which Americans favored a total ban on smoking.

It's "possible" that the broad question about making smoking totally illegal in public places would produce different results if the option for setting aside areas for smokers had been included."

The "Possible" - SHOULD READ "probable"

It's too bad - I have ALWAYS trusted gallops polls - But the way this one was conducted - and the Bias shown in the way it was published let's me know - that Anti's have INDEED infiltrated GALLOP
ItsAStench

Winnipeg, Canada

#16 Jul 27, 2012
roll your own cigs ruin your own life, dig your own grave, ruin your own health, shorten your own life.
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#17 Jul 27, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
It's too bad - I have ALWAYS trusted gallops polls - But the way this one was conducted - and the Bias shown in the way it was published let's me know - that Anti's have INDEED infiltrated GALLOP
Junior, these folks have been asking questions and publishing the results for a long time. All they really have is their reputation and credibility --- why would they risk that over a question like this? Consider the possibility that, in a world where only 20% of the population still smokes, the opinion of the majority may have turned against public smoking.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#18 Jul 28, 2012
Let's apply the reasoning presented above to THIS element of the text:

"Relatively few Americans support the idea of making all smoking illegal across the country -- perhaps partly in recognition of the practical difficulties involved in enforcing such a ban."

There is, I submit, no "Perhaps" about it. Without the pragmatic consideration of difficult enforcement the idea would be far more popular.
As it is, I don't see how they can say a statistic that has risen from 14% to 19% is "not much different". That's an increase of more than 33%. In what universe is THAT inconsequential?
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#20 Jul 28, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider the possibility that, in a world where only 20% of the population still smokes, the opinion of the majority may have turned against public smoking.
Why do you keep making such stupid statements?
Is it JUST to be argumentative???- Or do you REALLY NOT GET IT???

They have Already stated - in that VERY SAME POLL that you make reference to - that the percentage is possibly not accurate (again - read that PROBABLY!)- they had just done the same poll 1 year ago - only THAT TIME THEY WERE ASKING THE QUESTION PROPERLY - SO AS TO OBTAIN A REALISTIC RESULT and found that the majority DO NOT FAVOR a ban in Hotels/Motels - And a VAST MAJORITY do not favor a ban in bars.

With this poll - they decided ask a "Blanket Statement" - and give 2 options - It's NOT EVEN THE SAME POLL - HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY COME UP WITH A NUMBER THAT COULD BE COMPARED?????
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#21 Jul 28, 2012
Hugh Jass wrote:
Let's apply the reasoning presented above to THIS element of the text:
"Relatively few Americans support the idea of making all smoking illegal across the country -- perhaps partly in recognition of the practical difficulties involved in enforcing such a ban."
There is, I submit, no "Perhaps" about it. Without the pragmatic consideration of difficult enforcement the idea would be far more popular.
As it is, I don't see how they can say a statistic that has risen from 14% to 19% is "not much different". That's an increase of more than 33%. In what universe is THAT inconsequential?
How about the universe WHERE OVER 80% STILL OPPOSE IT??????
Old Guy

Brookville, OH

#22 Jul 28, 2012
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
they had just done the same poll 1 year ago
No, they last did the poll in 2007.

"When Gallup first asked about a ban on public smoking in 2001, 39% were in favor, an attitude that stayed roughly the same through 2007, the last time Gallup asked the question until this year's July 7-10 survey."

"A majority of Americans now support the concept of a full smoking ban in all public places, marking a significant change from four years ago, when Gallup last measured this attitude."
Hugh Jass Jr wrote:
<quoted text>
HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY COME UP WITH A NUMBER THAT COULD BE COMPARED?????
That's why they compare it to the original question as they they asked it in 2007, instead of the more detailed question asked in 2010. That's how you know that attitudes are changing.

Look, I'm not trying to beat you up --- I'm just saying that the world is changing, and smoking is falling out of favor. In the 1950s, most men and a lot of women had smoked at some point in their life. Smoking 2-3 packs a day was not uncommon. Today, there's a majority that has never smoked. And I don't know anyone that smokes more than a pack a day. Don't expect that trend to change any time soon.
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#23 Jul 28, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they last did the poll in 2007.
No - They last did the Poll in 2010 - learn to read!

2007, was the last time Gallup ASKED THAT question until this year's July 7-10 survey."

In ALL PREVIOUS POLLS - they ALWAYS included questions about banning in specific locations.- And THEY ALWAYS FOUND THE MAJORITY PREFERED A "SET ASIDE" (SMOKERS AREA)(except for restuarants)
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
"A majority of Americans now support the concept of a full smoking ban in all public places,.
NO THEY DON'T!- But when the question is asked and NO OTHER OPTIONS GIVEN - like it was presented FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER - IN THIS POLL (A SIMPLE YES OR NO - NO IN BETWEENS)- Then those who would favor a "Partial Ban" (Set aside areas)- are FORCED To choose YES - It's a very deceptive and often used tactic of the Anti's!

JUST DESIGH THE STUDY - SO IT WILL COME OUT IN OUR FAVOR!
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, I'm not trying to beat you up
Believe me - YOU'RE NOT!!!!
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I don't know anyone that smokes more than a pack a day. Don't expect that trend to change any time soon.
That's because you choose to live a small and limited life!
If you weren't so IMMERSED in the Anti-Smoking rheteric - maybe you could learn WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING around you!!
Hugh Jass Jr

Wichita, KS

#24 Jul 28, 2012
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
in a world where only 20% of the population still smokes,
BTW - that same poll also found that 22% now smoke - ALMOST EXACTLY the percentage found 12 years ago - and actually UP 10% from a couple of years ago.

Keep up with the times - your quoting OLD figures - are you just trying to make your Comrades FEEL better??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Port Richey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Metro Fences Tue banner_nicholas 7
Debate: Marijuana - New Port Richey, FL (Aug '10) May 4 johnnytrident 51
US Air Conditioning Heating & Refig (Aug '06) May 1 Lissa Craddock 129
Is Tarpon Springs a good place to live? (Mar '08) Apr 26 boris 45
Review: John's Towing & Transport (May '13) Apr 23 william 9
tarpon springs/ unique (Jan '14) Apr 23 Outside-the-box 6
Tarpon Springs Police Officer's Murder What Fo... Apr 19 william 14
More from around the web

New Port Richey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]