CRU-Inet Criminals
The 18th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America
(intoxicating liquors are prohibited-1920)
was repealed by The 21st Amendment-1933.
Has there been a new 'Prohibition' Amendment added to The Constitution
(intoxicating tobacco is prohibited-2005)?
What's next to be prohibited--baloney burgers?
Fat content deemed to be too high, charcoal causes cancer, etc., etc..
StockCar-related? We all use the Internet!
Great series sponsor Winston gone.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/News01/603010419/CAT=News01
South Bend Tribune March 01, 2006
LANSING (AP) -- Michigan has extracted about $5.9 million from
about 9,000 people who tried to dodge the state's $2-a-pack
cigarette tax by shopping on the Internet, and thousands more
could face similar assessments, officials say.

In February 2005, Michigan subpoenaed 13 Internet sites for
lists of their customers. So far, four have agreed to cooperate.
Internet buyers of other products are supposed to pay the
Michigan sales tax when they file their state income tax returns.
But there is no such provision for the cigarette tax.
[CRU: What's the collection rate on these other products?]

It is a misdemeanor to possess unstamped cigarettes, or to
bring into the state or sell between 6 and 14 cartons of
untaxed cigarettes. It is a felony to transport or sell
15 cartons or more. So far, Michigan has not sought criminal
penalties against the online buyers.
About 1 in 4 adults in Michigan smokes.

CRU:
It appears The Revenooers are winning vs The Moonshiners.
But they'll never totally beat us. Just like the British were
unable to continue their 'Tea Tax' in the 1770s,
Michigan and its cohorts will not be able to 'Stamp' out
we bad tobacco users cuz now we can get ours from China,
& they will bootleg anything at anytime!
--
Crusader

Crusader wrote:
Michigan's tax law is just goofy - how on earth are they going to
subpoena all the web retailers' sales records!?! They are relying on
the honor system...what a joke. I know Iowa would like to do the same
thing, only not put it on the honor system.

We are the state where those around us come to buy tobacco - very small
tax per pack - the D governor keeps trying to raise it but the R
legislature won't do it...they say they make too much in sales to
citizens of surrounding states to give it up.

I quit on a whim just over a year ago, and I still think pushing this
"sin" tax over all other "sin" taxes just ain't right.

N.

N.

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

Michigan's behaviour is proof that the tax isn't about getting folks to
quit, it is about jumping on the tobacco profit train. I wonder if state
governments can be sued in much the same way tobacco companies are. After
all, with a specific tobacco tax, it would seem to me that state governments
would be co-conspirators in taking advantage of the nicotine addicted
masses.

Carey in Manvel

"Carey Akin" <cmakin (AT) att (DOT) net> wrote

Chicago just raised their *sin* tax, again:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cig01.html

Of course they are - that's the point. It's a no-brainer tax - there
isn't any defense put forth by a smoker, for his habit - the smoke
offends nearly everyone, even smokers, and pollutes the air and makes
people sick. What's to like?

(And speaking of the tobacco profit train - I wonder what other states
have done with their portions of the huge "tobacco settlement" of a few
years ago. I know Iowa said they would spend their windfall on
tobacco-prevention programs and treatment of tobacco-related illness,
but have they? No way. They've spent the millions and millions of
dollars on just every other fly-by-night scheme that's come down the
pike, with no apologies to the taxpayers. As a state, we're still
broke; our property taxes are high; our education system is getting to
be a mess. If Iowa had spent the millions on these problems, most of
us taxpayers wouldn't have a problem. Instead, there have been huge
outlays on promoting tourism and other similar high-falutin' ideas.
Doesn't anyone else see the problem? Iowa is NOT a tourist destination
and no matter what is built or developed here, it never will be. Does
anyone ever save up for a vacation in Iowa? Not a chance. LOL.)

Sorry, this is a rant for another time....

N.

"Nancy1" <nancy-dooley (AT) uiowa (DOT) edu> wrote

No argument there.
Winston Cup. There actually is a big tourist draw for Iowa, and I don't
mean covered bridges and loose farm wives. Of course the group that would
be attracted is somewhat of a niche demographic, but I am in it. Yes, Iowa
is one of the places I need to get to before I die. One of these days I may
even spend my yearly vacation savings to go there. Of what am I speaking?
Why, the Knoxville Nationals, of course.

But, I am the kind of guy who thinks a week in Indiana in the summer is a
viable alternative to a week on the Mexican Caribbean. I am just glad my
girlfriend does, too. In fact, if we do go to Mexico this year, I believe
that she will be truly disappointed about not going back to Indiana. The
wife, well let's just say that she didn't feel that way. Which is why she
is an ex (among other things, of course).

Carey in Manvel

There actually is a big tourist draw for Iowa, and I don't
Iowa also has the Midwest Old Threshers Reunion in Mt. Pleasant. Many
thousands of people, from all over the country, spend a week of their
vacation in this small town and many come every year.

Dave

Carey Akin wrote:
Gosh, my awful bad ;-) How could I forget Knoxville? (Well, I'm not a
dirt-track fan.) Now someone who wants to enjoy Knoxville and time it
to pair up with a race at Rusty's new track in Newton - not too far
apart.

N.

Hairy wrote:
Been there, done that - got covered in black soot for my efforts ;-)

I didn't mean to imply that there isn't anything to do here - it's just
not # 1 on most peoples' schedules.

N.

"Hairy" <hairy (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:46p02fFc26jrU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net:

I hope to be one of those in attendance within the next year or two.

Bud