Smokers Beware-ATF conducting massive sting operation over next three months in oHEILo

Do you know how many people I sell cigarettes to everyday without an ID check? This is disgusting, I am not going to ID a sixty year old man. Are they attempting to disable our ability to use common sense or is this simply a control issue?

And I know people who have read papers indicating that the moon landings were faked. I don't believe a word of this. Ok I might believe that they are going to do a crackdown on under aged sales but what they usually do then is hire a kid about 17 that looks a bit older, and send them into stores to buy ciggs. the way described above would never make it in court.

Look. I like the way a guy who never posted before (roygbiv), at least as far as I KNOW, comes out of nowhere to call me, or the kid I talked to, a liar. Matbe I'm judging you too harshly, but it certainly sounds like it.I'm telling you, I've known this kid for more than 2 years, he does NOT bullshit, and he was visibly shaken/worried about his job when he told me about this. I agree that it MAY NOT be the ATF involved, he may have gotten it confused with another agency of the government (though they're all evil), but-i do believe he read that memo. A major company/chain is NOT going to put something like that out unless their's something behind it. If I learn anything else, I'll post it.

"OUR ABILITY TO USE COMMON SENCE"?? I believe you lost that when you put that "FIRST CANCR STICK" in your mouth my friend

Pssst...Hey, ASSHOLE...I know Reinhart personally, and-GUESS WHAT? He's a non-smoker.

Darkseid, haven't posted much since the format changed, but had posted a bit in the past 6-8 months or so. I wasn't calling you or the kid a liar, I was mostly implying that Barnum greatly under estimated, when he said that there was a sucker born every minute.

Darkseid, here is my logic on this. There is no law anywhere requiring a sales clerk to request an ID, however there are laws against selling to a minor. So it makes sense to check for ID's especially on anyone looking like they are under 30, however many stores require you to check all ID's just to cover the stores ass. If you do sell to a minor the fines are stiff both for the clerk and for the store. Now say I buy ciggs at a store and they don't check my ID (I'm in my 40's...and for the record do not smoke) and walkout side the police or law enforcement can not detain me unless they have reason to believe a law was broken, they would have a hard time convincing a judge that they had reason to believe I was under 18 and that a law was broken, I would then sue for being unlawfull detained,the case against the store and the clerk would be thrown out, and they would most likely sue as well. Now would a store have reasons for spreading such a story, you bet, it removes any chance that someone would sell to someone possibly underage.

I like your anaylsis,roygbiv, but I would like to add another twist: I wonder if the kid just got it wrong. Was it something he read, and didn't understand, or was told, and misapprehended. At least, he seems like a good clerk. Someone who obeys orders. But I doubt he'll ever run the business. Not enough balls, or commen-sense to make a "business decision". But no one can accuse him of not following orders. A clerk just like me. Of course, a lot of pissed off customers will be leaving that store.

Oh I'm sure that the stores owners are perfectly content to let him believe the story, and may have even passed the story on, but instead of looking for the truth, or even a bit of common sense, the attitude here was lets run around like chicken little and show our eroding rights and what a facist government we have, the government does enough real stuff to be worried about, and it all gets blurred when stories like this with no foundation, are thrown around as fact.

(I'm in my 40's...and for the record do not smoke)
---------------------

Gee. Really? I never would have guessed. I saw the kid about 15 minutes ago and told him I was catching flak on a few blogs . He REPEATED-ATF. And any semblance to freedom was gone from this country shortly after 9/11. Americans don't like freedom. It makes you think too much. Far easier to let someone else do it for you.

I guess I don't understand. I thought ATF was a federal agency. Why would they be concerned with enforcing what is essentially a state law against selling tobacco to minors. I tried to check this by googling "ATF tobacco minors", and didn't really find anything in the first 10 or 20 entries. There was a reference to the ATF trying (but not succeeding) in getting law passed to fine tobacco manufacturers $3,000 per minor caught smoking. There were more references to selling guns to minors (I know that 2nd Amendment advocates might say a kid can have any weapon he wants, but after Jobe I am not so sure). Could it be the state agency that is involved?

This is the only reference I could find. It was a law proposed (I am not sure it passed) to "tax" tobacco companies for teenagers who become smokers, http://members.tripod.com/platforum/smoke.htm.

The above link seems to be broken. Google "ATF tobacco minors fine" and the first link shown should be "Cigarette taxes". If you double-click that it should lead you to the above article out of a newspaper in Houston followed by one from the "Washington Post".

This is what I found in Ohio Revised Code 2151.87 concerning the use of tobacco by those under 18 years of age):

"(B) No child shall do any of the following unless accompanied by a parent, spouse who is eighteen years of age or older, or legal guardian of the child:

(1) Use, consume, or possess cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes;

(2) Purchase or attempt to purchase cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes;

(3) Order, pay for, or share the cost of cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes;

(4) Except as provided in division (E) of this section, accept or receive cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes.

© No child shall knowingly furnish false information concerning that child’s name, age, or other identification for the purpose of obtaining cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes.

(D) A juvenile court shall not adjudicate a child a delinquent or unruly child for a violation of division (B)(1), (2), (3), or (4) or © of this section.

(E)(1) It is not a violation of division (B)(4) of this section for a child to accept or receive cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes if the child is required to do so in the performance of the child’s duties as an employee of that child’s employer and the child’s acceptance or receipt of cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes occurs exclusively within the scope of the child’s employment.

(2) It is not a violation of division (B)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section if the child possesses, purchases or attempts to purchase, orders, pays for, shares the cost of, or accepts or receives cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes while participating in an inspection or compliance check conducted by a federal, state, local, or corporate entity at a location at which cigarettes, other tobacco products, or papers used to roll cigarettes are sold or distributed."

According to the above it would seem legal to me for a parent to "give" his kids cigarettes. So if parents would just start to give their kids cigarettes a lot of this hassle could be avoided. Come on, moms and dads give the kids their own cartons for Christmas. We could start a new Christmas tradition.

roygbiv said in this other post:

>>babbleman...for your information 6-10 million children are raised in a household with Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual parents.>>

As it turns out, given the number of same sex households in the 2000 US census, that would mean that there are somewhere between 42 and 71 children in each and every household.

Then, in this post, roygbiv says:

>>Barnum greatly under estimated, when he said that there was a sucker born every minute.>>

And also:

>>the government does enough real stuff to be worried about, and it all gets blurred when stories like this with no foundation, are thrown around as fact.>>

So much for stories with no foundation that are thrown around as fact.

The other post involved a charge that government run education was attempting to give students the impression that the frequency of children with gay parents was far more than it really is.

There are people that defend the government no matter what - for them, individuals are all conspiracy theorists and facts only get in the way the government is threatened.

Babbleman. thanks for showing that I had posted before. I don't support the government on everything, I am strongly against the warrentless evesdropping propgated by this government on US citizens, I was stongly against invading Iraq (although I do support the troops, and I am not for an immediate withdrawl), I personally think that Bush should face impeachment charges on a number of topics. However I will not jump on every conspiricy that comes around saying how evil the govenrment is. As for the gay post, I am not going to support anything that allows for some one to be excluded based on their sex, Gays are the one govenmentally sanctioned group that red neck bigots and self rightous religious people are allowed to trash and discriminate against, and yeah sorry if I don't support that. If you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend Gays don't exist your just being stupid, (and for the record I'm straight, although I do have a fair number of gay friends). As for this Cigg post, show me the proof, if this is happening the press would be having a field day, lawsuits would be flying, and stores would be posting those memo's in their stores to show people what idiots the government, but since its not true, and just one more attempt to rally smokers and non smokers into believing that their is some great conspiricy to take away our rights starting with the front line soldier the smoker.

Babbleman for someone who obviously hates the government so much, you put a lot of faith in the census number which are noted for being inaccurate. Especially among groups who have found it best not to be identified. Although more gays are feeling free to come out, many don't, and many would never identify themselves as gay on any government census.

Regardless of roygbiv's credibility, I too doubt that the ATF will be requiring 60 year-olds to return their cigarettes purchased without ID. The kid who related the story doesn't need to be a liar or BSer to have gotten the information wrong. This is even more true since the general rule of thumb is to inly require ID when the person purchasing looks younger than 30 or 40.

There is no law that requires this guideline, it is set by company policies. Neither the ATF nor any other agency would have any basis for requiring a store to ID a person clearly older than that.

And, roygbiv is right about one thing - the people adamantly opposed to the smoking ban would make SURE that the media was all over any plan like the one described above. And, even if the media wouldn't pick up the story, there would be one hell of an email campaign underway. Check out the story with more than the kid at the convenience store - chances are he got it wrong; probably close, but wrong.

but since its not true, and just one more attempt to rally smokers and non smokers into believing that their is some great conspiricy to take away our rights starting with the front line soldier the smoker.
----------------------------------

F**king idiot.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Darkseid, bring on the proof, show me where some 60 year old buyer of ciggs was detained forced to return his ciggs, and the clerk and the store was fined and shut down as a result of the 60 year old not having an proof of his age. Especially if it is up held in court. But I'm guessing that you can't and are pissed that you can't, and are even more pissed that I called you on it, and called attention to the fact that you don't really care if its true because it supports your claim that smokers rights are being infringed upon (which I'll agree that they are, except not in this case).

Darkse,
Why don't you take one for the team?
Conduct a sting yourself by going around this great state of ours buying smokes without an ID in attempts to lure some unsuspecting authority types into confronting your inner uber rebel?

Insist on a trial by jury? Invoke or ask that jury nullification of unjust laws be invoked? http://www.fija.org/

If you're telegenic, articulate, have a bubbly personality/sense of humor, pick the right side of the cause, you'll be sure to make a dent possibly delivering a fatal blow to your oppressors incompetence.

Think WWJD if he were a typical angry alarmist smoker.

Why aren't you growing your own tobacco anyway?

Both of you can Lick my nuts.I posted this for smokers, NOT FOR YOU, just so they'd be sure to carry ID. Charlatan ,you picked the perfect screen name, BTW. I just hear about this around 24 hours ago and you think it'll be front-page news already. Ever stop to think that maybe the state DOESN'T WANT it known? BTW, I did roll my own until I switched back to stogies and a pipe. F**k Phillip Morris too. They work with the government to screw over smokers, as long as it helps them maintain their #1 status.

You know darkseid, until your last few posts I didn't realize that you were most likely in need of your medications, I hear the new anti psychotics that are out, really do work for people with paranoia, so try not to miss too many more.

F**k you very much, you flippant bastard.

Amendment to my previous statement-I ALSO started this thread as a warning/headsup for anone in retail-as Reinhart is. I wish each and every one of you rabid smoker-haters would just stay OUT of threads that aren't of interest to you-that's what most people do. But-no-you despise smokers so much , you see the words tobacco or smoking, and you just can't stay out of them, can you? An interesting link for you will soon follow-then you can go to hell-which is where I hope you will burn someday. One more post and I am permanently out of the thread.

PM works with feds

Friday June 14, 2:48 pm Eastern Time

NEW YORK-- -June 14, 2002--Philip Morris U.S.A.

Company Believes Senator Kennedy's Introduction of FDA Bill is Positive Step

Philip Morris U.S.A. strongly supports the passage of legislation that would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) meaningful and effective authority to regulate cigarettes.

The Company welcomes the introduction of legislation by Senators Kennedy, DeWine and Durbin and looks forward to working with members of Congress as they consider legislation on this issue.

"Philip Morris U.S.A. is glad that Senator Kennedy's bill sensibly creates a new chapter of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act that responds to the unique regulatory challenges posed by tobacco products," said Michael Pfeil, Vice President, Communications and Public Affairs, Philip Morris U.S.A. "As such, we believe that its introduction is a positive step that should help move the process forward towards ultimate passage of an FDA tobacco bill."

The Company supports FDA regulation in each area covered by Senator Kennedy's bill, from the imposition of performance standards to reduce harm, to new warning labels, to good manufacturing practices, to FDA authority over the development and responsible marketing of potentially reduced risk products.

"Where there are differences, they are in degree only," said Pfeil. "All of Philip Morris U.S.A.'s suggestions to improve this bill are grounded in the notion that the point of FDA regulation should be to reduce harm, while accepting that tobacco products are legitimate for adults to use if they want to. We look forward to working with the Senate's Health Committee as it proceeds to consider this important legislation."

The Company also believes that a tobacco quota buyout is, and should remain, linked to FDA regulation. Philip Morris U.S.A. strongly supports concepts like those embodied in the McIntyre-Davis bill (H.R. 3940) and urges Congress' timely consideration of legislation to address both issues.

This one explains it a bit better-ta-ta!

http://www.forces.org/evidence/papers/paper5/forces_international_0307.htm

Ok so the phillip morris thing is interesting and talk about biting the hand that feeds you, however it has nothing to do or to support your original rant. As for licking your balls, as posted eariler I'm straight, but I admire the courage that it takes for you to come out of the closet in such a public way, Although I'm not interested I will check with may gay friend to see if any are interested in an angry, smoking, slightly psychotic, senior citizen, they usually have better taste than this but you never know, I might find someone for you.

Darkseid. Almost forgot to tell you to get your story straight. In your original rant you indacated that the memo had been sent to "virtually every place in the state that sells tobacco products" Then you claim you are just trying to warn those in retail (who should have also gotten the memo), and thus wouldn't need to be warned, and I'm guessing would be in here complaining or making a big issue out of it. Admit it you are not interested in the truth you just want to wind people up, so that hopefully they can become as bitter and unhappy as you are.

Hello All :) I registered here because I am the one who spoke to the Original Poster. What we were told and shown from our corporate office was a memorandum that was received from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). This memo stated that agents would be canvassing the area and would be looking for the following:

1. Sales to underage sting operators.

2. Sales made without evidence/proof of age.

The memo then went on to explain that ANY sale of tobacco and/or alcohol that was done without proof of age was subject to a fine for both the store and the customer service rep. The agents would be "stinging" operations and as a customer exits the store they would ask for the customers government issued VALID (read that as non-expired) ID. If the customer cannot produce the ID then they are escorted into the store with an agent, made to return the item for a refund, and the CSR is then given a fine as is the store. If a store had repeated violations of said policy it would be in jeopardy of losing both it's alcohol and tobacco licenses.

To ensure compliance with this memorandum MANY (read that as reputable) stores in our area have adopted the following policy:

Everyone - Every Time. This is to ensure that no matter who is being sold the product that IF there were an agent outside they could show proof of their age. Overall this new policy has had mixed results; with a few minor grumbles here and there, but nothing overt such as decrease in customers or sales. Many older customers think it funny they are being carded, customers from aged 18-40 understand as it has been common practice to card them already, and a few customers complain and state they will not be back (Only to return in a few hours or the next day with ID in hand and ready).

Let me just say this: While I do not agree with this policy whatsoever... for the sake of my employment I am forced to follow it. thankfully I am in college and will only be there another year.

And on a final note: I find it thoroughly disgusting the way some people have responded to the original poster; saying things like he forgot to take his medicine etc.. He simply came here to advise people of why they may be asked to show their ID now and why they weren't a week or two ago. not all stores are following this procedure of "Everyone - Every Time," but then again not all stores asked for IDs in the first place (We all know where teens can go in Toledo and buy alcohol/cigarettes).

Anyways; I just wanted to clear a few things up.. and defend the original poster since all he was trying to do was help people and got flamed for giving a crap about anyone else but himself!

What about this: "Said clerk will then be instantly fined 5000 dollars, more for the store or company, and said place of business will be instantly closed down by the government.", or this just over the top, Fixxer?

If this is true then I would urge everyone to write their congressman. This seems to be a real abuse of federal authority (and I am not a smoker), and a waste of our tax dollars for enforcement of laws. Unless the agencies are stopping everyone (instead of only randomly) this wouldn't generate as much money as was spent on enforcement I believe. What a waste of federal resources, or state resources.

You may be correct Fixxer His initial intent was to provide info for others,unfortunately Darkdshit, is so illiterate all he can do to express himself by name calling and show his lack of knowledge of the English language,lolololol, I really find him humorous personally I hope "GOOD BUDDY" DARKSHIT HAS A BETTER DAY, hope ya know what "GOOD BUDDY"means in truck driver language?? hehehehhehe!!

This just doesn't 'smell' right. There is no federal law stating you have to show ID to anyone. Even Ohio law states that you are not required to show your ID to any Law Enforcement Officer (or anyone for that matter) - unless you are driving a motor vehicle. You DO, however, have to state your name, current address and DOB when requested.

If it were me, I'd tell Mr. Federal Officer to pound salt! (actually, with my 'outlook' on Feds being rather...ah...dim, the actual wording would be stronger) Wanna roll a local marked unit, then we might talk.

Wait, wait... are YOU (blacjac687) actually calling HIM illiterate? I don't have anything against you personally but that's ridiculous. What, with your double punctuation and barely passable grammar.

Anyway, I appreciate you posting this, Darkseid. I haven't heard anything about it yet but I've also yet to ask my manager and we aren't a major tobacco seller anyway. (We're a bit expensive and have a bad selection.) However, if you smoke there's no reason not to simply remember to carry your ID just in case.

This line from his original post indicates his intent:

"Get ready for the gestapo, because it's here. The excuse is to be used, of course, it's 'for the children', to keep them from gettin hold of tobacco products. That's a lie, of course,and it's to both further persecute smokers and make some money for the state at the same time. Memos have been sent to virtually every place in the state that sells tobacco products , according to the guy who informed me-he personally read it"

His intent is to rile people up and to show his belief that smokers are being persecuted unfairly and that our rights are being taken away (which I actually agree with, however this isn't happening the way he states it).

As for flaming him he couldn't deal with someone pointing out the flaws in his story or even asking for proof, so he relied on name calling and swearing, and soliciting sexual acts (which were rebuffed).

Reinhart you seem reasonable, when do you actually ask for an ID. I would think if I was in your position I would ask anyone who looks younger than 35, (and who I personally haven't already checked their ID in the past, I'm not gonna ask (barring a new law, or strict company policy) someone who looks over 35, or who is a regular that looks under 35 but who I know is legal. Which is the same criteria I would use if I was selling Alochol. I'm in my 40's and I get carded about 25% of the time when I buy wine, or booze in a store, and maybe 2% in a restraunt.

Well, hes definitely not the only one who thinks we're turning into a police state, but I guess that's besides the point. Personally, I took the colorfulness of his post as trying to make what he was saying (typing) sound interesting. Which consequently makes people more likely to read it.

Well, normally I ID anyone who looks younger than 30 unless (as you said) I have already ID'ed them. Also, we're required to ID anyone accompanying (barring them being parents.) someone buying alcohol or cigarettes who do not meet the same criteria.

I've caught a lot of people of age trying to buy booze or tobacco with someone much younger, one of which was brilliant enough to pass his older buddy money to pay for it.