I can remember buying single cigs, you know why I did it even though cost wise it would double the cost of a pack? Because if I bought one or two cigs that was all I had for the night, and could get no more unless I dragged my ass out to a corner shop. I had to wait til I had to go back into town in the morning.
It was an easy way to make sure I didn’t have a full pack around to smoke.
But what is the logic offered by governments for banning the sale of loosies? It is always that loose cig sales somehow encourage smoking, as if pulling together the money for a full pack is barrier to entry.:rolleyes: This same logic applied to alcohol would only allow people to buy a case of beer, or a gallon jug of vodka because that will discourage alcoholism.
I always thought it was to discourage children from smoking - those that really would find it difficult to scrape together the money for a full pack.
Furthermore - I don’t think tax evasion has anything to do with it - when I used to manage a convenience store, the tobacco tax was already included in the wholesale price - I didn’t have to account for tobacco sales separately
This makes no sense, the cigarettes are still bought by the seller by the carton or pack and the tax in charged at that point. If you’re suggesting that loosie sellers are buying untaxed cigs, well what stops them from selling them as packs?
I think the OP makes a good point. There probably are a lot of people who would smoke more if they’re buying packs rather than singles because they have more cigarettes on hand. Buying singles can act as a form of self-imposed rationing.
And there undoubtedly are also people who would smoke less. As PSXer points out, poor people might be scrounging for money to buy cigarettes and the cost of a whole pack might be beyond them.
So on the whole, I feel there’s no justification for banning the sale of singles if there’s no clear evidence that it has a positive effect.
Packs of cigarettes have a stamp on the bottom. This shows that the tax was paid. Loose cigarettes have no stamp, so the state tobacco enforcers can’t see that the tax was paid.
It is almost impossible to imagine a smoker, or nicotine addict that is going to be deterred by having to a buy a whole pack. No one is going to quit smoking because of that, they will just get the money.
And as for encouraging kids to smoke, it is still illegal to sell to those under 18. I don’t know how it makes it more likely that sellers will break the law to sell to kids, if it is legal to sell single cigs to adults.
Thats a different issue, I mean they loose cigs are coming from somewhere and tax inspectors? could ask to see the pack the loosies are coming from. If they are selling smuggled cigarettes that were not taxed bust them for that.
Oh, I wasn’t necessarily disagreeing with you. I was just explaining how it could be considered tax evasion. Selling singles untaxed as a way to bypass the tax wouldn’t be profitable anyway. (Unless you had a drawer-full of them, which would raise the suspicions of the revenuers.)
I’ve seen the law come into practise in 2 different places (also the banning of 5 and 10 stick packs)
In both places - the justification was nothing to do with “addicts” or “adult smokers” - in both places the contention was (I’m not saying it was proven) that the sale of single sticks and small / more affordable packs makes it easier / more likely for young, non addicts to try a single stick
Just so everybody knows, none of my replies in this thread has combative or hostile intent, I just appreciate the discussion.
I feel that a law against selling to minors is enough, it should matter whether the merchant is selling a cig or a carton there is already legislation in place to put the hurt on 'em.
I guess I can’t imagine a youngster deciding “hey I want to try cigarettes” and being deterred by the requirement they buy a full pack, which the merchant would still be breaking the law to sell to them. Hell I’d bet most people’s first ever cigarette came from a fellow smoker, not purchased by them.
It is really odd how sweeping this idea has become with governments with seemingly nonsense logic backing it up.(I suspect it is because it makes it look like they are DOING SOMETHING while not ruffling the feathers of merchants or smokers too bad).
Its cool, I wasn’t trying to start a heated debate.
Like I said it seems simple enough to require merchants to keep the tax stamps on packs or cartons and account for them should an inspector come around. Unless they mean like asking individual smokers to account for the tax info on a single cig in their pocket, but I have not seen that anywhere.
Taxing by stamp just sound so outdated, anyways. What other taxed items are handled by stamp?
The problem I see with grude’s argument is that I don’t think it’s just about kids for these people. They don’t want young adults to pick up the habit either. All the things they do with cigarettes is to try to reduce the numbers of people who smoke. The whole idea is to make smoking less convenient for everyone, to hopefully get them to quit.
Not that I necessarily agree this is all that necessary anymore. Or that a single smoke will turn you into an addict.
I understand that BUT I think requiring people to purchase and have on their person larger amounts of the poisonous and addictive substance is working against their goal. Like I said imagine to fight alcoholism a law was made that hard liquor could only be sold in five gallon amounts, all that accomplishes is now every drinker has a enormous amount in their abode tempting them to pour another.
*I don’t encourage anyone to start or try smoking if they have not before, tobacco is probably the worst recreational drug out there.
Around here - a pack of 20 goes for $12, so a single stick would most likely be priced at 80 cents or $1.
Speaking strictly of my own kids - yeah, they could spring $1 without me noticing, $12 not so much.
Of course - as to the illegality part, most of the laws I saw as regards “single stick” sales pretty much predated age limits, or were in conjunction with weak age limits.
A strictly enforced age limit is certainly a better tool than banning single stick sales.
Also to note - around here, individual cigarettes are stamped with tax info, and woe betide you if you get caught with a tax unpaid stick
I just recently un-quit (shut up, leave it alone). If I could have just picked up a cigarette here and there I would have been fine, but I couldn’t, I gave in and bought a pack, that was three packs and about a month ago.
As a kid, if I could have sent some grown up in to the gas station with a quarter…wow, we would have lived outside the gas station. Buy one, smoke one, not have to hide the pack.
Also, while I wasn’t smoking I would often bum a few cigarettes off of other people when I went out. Just having, say, two cigarettes to go out for the night is sometimes what kept me from buying a full pack. Buying a full pack would have meant starting back up.
The problem is that it’s illegal for the random guy on the street to sell anything without all the proper permits AND if you’re selling loosies in front a corner store that can’t legally sell them (and people want them) your store is going to lose sales.
WRT to Eric Garner (and I don’t know how it’s all played out). Leaving all the politics out of it, the cops were called because he was driving business away from their stores, he was allegedly selling cigarettes with no tax stamp and it’s safe to assume didn’t have all the legal paper work to be selling anything at all.
D’jever try to buy one egg? There are certain things that are marketed differently in the third world than in the USA. Tobacco products are controlled substances and eggs are not, and that is really the only difference. The state controls the sale of cigarettes because they can.
I remember liquor tax stamps, the strip pasted over the lid. When did those stop being used? Pretty sure I bought at least one or two bottles with them in my earliest days.
