"There's no doubt that there's a direct relationship between the increase in a state's tax and the increase in illegal trafficking"(John D'Angelo of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms qtd. in "Cigarette Smuggling," by Bruce Bartlett, National Center For Policy Analysis No.423, 30 Oct. 2002)
"Another problem is that cigarette distribution moves out of normal outlets and into criminal channels, controls on cigarette purchases by minors erode" (Bruce Bartlett).
Something that people rarely ever consider when prohibiting or overtaxing items such as tobacco, alcohol, firearms -- or tea is the increased leverage and power this hands to black market entrepreneurs. Usually, those willing to risk working in the black market are involved in violent crime and subjugation of those born into lives of poverty.
When my state tobacco prohibition went into effect nearly a year ago, the violent California gangs moved right on up and began recruiting on the Indian reservations. The reason for this is that Indian reservations, especially in border states, become very important areas for the transport and storage of the black market product due to the fact that they're somewhat independent of the rest of the state. Actually, a reservation is not so much free and independent, but neglected and not allowed to enforce justice as well as they might if the states actually allowed them independence.
Part of the beauty of an Indian reservation to crime syndicates is this condition of limbo many reservations are trapped in. On many reservations, the citizens are unable to get the criminals off the streets and out of their neighborhoods because they don't have the same type of court system we have. Criminal cases are supposed to be in the hands of the state, rather than in the local city and county courts. The state often ignores the pleas of the locals and won't prosecute a criminal or get around to trying the case. Many neighborhoods are held hostage by the local pedophile or violent gang member because the people cannot put them away and the state won't do anything. This causes a feeling of helplessness and despair amongst the people. I'm sure this is not the case on all reservations, but on many it is. It's the perfect environment for crime syndicates.
Earlier this year Obama signed the PACT Act ("Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking" Act), which prohibits the shipping of all tobacco products via the U.S. Postal Service. Oops, one, tobacco product was exempt from this law. Can you guess which one? It's the one that Bill Clinton couldn't figure out how to smoke, thinking it was a sex toy; it's the one they smoke at my state capital inspite of the ban on smoking, because politicians and their big fat cigars are above the law.
This act will dramatically increase the power of criminal elements in the U.S. Already, it is costing the USPS in lost shipping charges. Is it possible that the PACT Act is the reason the Post Office can no longer afford to operate and will have to stop shipping on Saturdays?
The PACT Act is a direct assault upon tobacco business and the U.S. Postal Service. This means more honest people out of work, higher shipping rates for everyone, less service, and increased crime.
The PACT Act dramatically effects international trade too. I'm seeing that products such as Swedish snus and certain types of pipe tobacco are nearly impossible to obtain in the U.S. Interestingly, this Act harms the most innocent and respectful groups amongst those who use tobacco: the poor, handicapped, and those with a heightened respect of tobacco--the pipe smoker.
Does anyone remember what happened during the Tobacco and Alcohol Prohibitions of the 1920s?
Before alcohol was prohibited a woman was rarely ever seen in a tavern drinking alongside the men.
We don't talk about it much, but preceding the Volstead Act, Tobacco Prohibition was rampant across the United States. Some states had bans against buying or selling it, while others had bans implemented by cities and counties. But by the 1920s something like 20 states had prohibited tobacco, especially cigarettes.
Why did women not belly up to the bar before Prohibition? And why was it only rebellious feminists openly smoked cigarettes before the 1920s? Well, for one, many laws were sexist and prohibited women from smoking, but beyond that there must have been another reason.
Hmm. Do drug dealers card their patrons to make sure they're of legal age? Do they look at the pretty young woman and say, "Sorry, hon, but you're too young and pretty. I just can't sell to you. I'm a good upstanding citizen with a reputation to keep and don't want to be responsible for your demise"?
Do drug dealers have shops with big windows and wide open doors where people can walk by and see inside?
Before Prohibition of Alcohol and Tobacco these consumer items were in the hands and control of honest citizens running honest and respectable businesses. It wasn't that men hated women, but that they respected them, that they didn't want them in the bar with them. Often, men were gathering in the bar after work and looked a bit rough and felt it too. They didn't want a woman having to look upon them in such a disgraceful state, before they'd cleaned up a bit. It was out of love for the woman that they wanted to protect them from a rough and dirty environment. It wasn't that women were too weak to handle the nitty gritty, every married man knows this, it was that they wanted to spare them added nitty gritty.
But along comes Prohibition, a favorite agenda of the feminists, and suddenly women were equal to men--equally low and drunk. When a crime lord runs the local speakeasy he doesn't give a damn who walks in the door as long as they've got money. In fact, having women there makes it easier for the men to spend more and get wasted. If the woman is right next to you getting tipsy, then the worry about drinking too much and having to face the wife is erased--or is it? Geez, who is this woman sitting on my lap? It sure isn't Ethel. She's younger and prettier than Ethel.
And so, a woman's life is ruined by Prohibition because now there are women in the bars with her husband. The Carry A. Nations got their way. They cast out one demon and replaced it with seven more.
Prohibition forces respectful and responsible citizens to quit consuming a product, thus eliminating them from society. When responsible and mature people are removed from the culture they no longer influence it or keep an eye on things, thus leaving only the disrespectful and irresponsible elements unmonitored and unchecked. This is what the local tobacco Prohibition has done in my local bars.
For some reason, the more mature and responsible people also smoked. Their calming and all-seeing presence kept the environment safe and enjoyable. Without them there is no one to show those new to drinking and tobacco that these are social aids meant to enable comfort and conversation and joy; not meant to be consumed as quickly and cheaply as possible and to such an excess that one doesn't remember socializing at all.
Without the responsible element there are no manners and the crowds have become more violent. It used to be that if a young man shoved a girl or was rude to her, another man would see this and step in and reprimand him and tell him he was too drunk. Now, there is no one to reprimand the drunk young men and no one to defend the girls. Usually, at live music shows the area near the stage is a wall of males who bar the females from seeing around them and won't let them near the front. This never used to be. It was an unspoken rule that the girls, especially if they were shorter than average got the area nearest the stage and the men gave way and stood back a couple rows. Since the Tobacco Prohibition this has all changed.
Violence increases dramatically with Prohibition. One reason for this is that if one is at a speakeasy, or involved in black market tobacco they cannot very easily report a crime because they will be fined or imprisoned if it is revealed that the violence occurred as a result of involvement with a prohibited item or establishment. If tobacco and alcohol are legal one is not afraid to report a violent crime because they will not be penalized or treated as less human. Crime syndicates have power over individuals when an item is illegal because they know law enforcement will not protect victims or their family. You suddenly become a citizen with fewer rights if you use a prohibited product.
Supposedly, Tobacco Prohibition protects the children from the effects of tobacco smoke. It is often claimed that increased tobacco taxes make it more difficult for minors to buy tobacco. It is also claimed that increased tobacco taxes offset health costs caused by tobacco use. In my state the state run children's health program is run on the backs of smokers. Every cigarette pays for another child's ADHD meds.
But does Tobacco Prohibition and increased taxes really protect the children from tobacco? No.
Tobacco Prohibitions actually make tobacco more harmful to young people. In Ireland and other European countries with strong tobacco prohibitions it is very common for minors, especially females to be the ones recruited to transport black market cigarettes into the country. These young women, mostly teens from poor neighborhoods are lured by spending money and plane tickets. They fill their suitcases with cigarettes and arrive in smaller airports. There are stories now, of entire planes full of these "Ants" each carrying small amounts of cigarettes, which alone don't mean much, but together equal millions and millions of dollars.
These young women may not be inhaling second hand smoke, but they're still exposed to tobacco. Now, instead of inhaling smoke, these women are exposed to the violence and abuse of their handlers. They are at risk of being beaten, raped, abandoned in foreign countries, and given jail sentences if caught. These young women put their relatives, friends, and neighborhoods at risk of violence and retribution should they offend their handlers. Is it really worth it to protect children from tobacco smoke when it increases violence against them?
With passage of the PACT Act we can see another problem with Prohibition. The PACT Act was supported by the anti smoking lobby and by the large tobacco companies. The reason the big tobacco companies support a prohibition upon U.S. Postal Service shipments of tobacco products is that many of these products are made by small companies and shops. People are dissatisfied with tobacco products manufactured by the well-known large tobacco companies. They don't like the price and they really don't like the quality.
In the past few years with the ease of online shopping people have been searching out better quality tobacco at discount prices, or even more expensive tobacco made by small businesses. People want tobacco, not chemicals and toxic and stinky additives. I myself can no longer stand the taste of big name cigarettes and haven't smoked them in years. It's not merely a habit, it really is like a good beer or coffee. Addicts don't care about taste or experience and want a fix, which is what the large tobacco companies and the Pharma Phascist NRT products supply.
All of this competition cuts into the monopoly of the large tobacco companies. They don't like those Indian brands, they don't like loose tobacco used for hand rolled cigarettes and pipes. They don't like foreign shops sending over specialty tobaccos.
Tobacco is like many other consumable items, or even like musical instruments, or like Colonel Sander's secret fried chicken recipe. A family or a geographic region may possess "secret" knowledge and produce a tobacco product that cannot be gotten from anyone else. These types of special tobaccos, many traditional, can only be bought and shipped through the U.S. Postal Service because they are unobtainable through any tobacco outlet in the country. The large tobacco companies don't like these products and would like to put them out of business.
Believe it or not Tobacco Prohibition increases the monopoly power of the few large tobacco companies and eradicates the small businesses and causes the loss of very old and proudly produced varieties of tobacco.
This happened during Alcohol Prohibition. Many of America's vineyards and special wine grapes were destroyed. A few of these rare grapes survived and are only now being rediscovered by the public who are again tasting wines that have not been experienced in nearly a hundred years. And who knows how many wonderful beers were lost to Prohibition?
The large tobacco companies thrive during periods of excessive taxation and prohibition because they are able to use black market channels to get their product into the region. I will not name names, but two of the large tobacco companies have been dealing with groups such as Hezbollah, TRIAD of Asia, the Irish Republican Army, U.S. Mafia, and Italian Mafia for years. These terrorist organizations traffic the black market tobacco, pass all tax barriers, and use the money to fund their political causes. And they shut down the small and better quality tobacco producers.
I have wondered if the Volstead Act was not in fact a monopoly takeover of the lucrative alcohol industry by the large producers. Before the Volstead, beer was a local product, produced by families.
Quite a few entrepreneurs knew that the Volstead Act was a government sanctioned monopoly takeover of the alcohol industry and bought up the bankrupt breweries and distilleries for pennies, holding them until the act was repealed, then got rich.
It's possible too, that Prohibition caused the Dust Bowl. It's only a speculation of mine and I'm no farmer, but I've listened to locals and others when they talk about farming and irrigation, and I've come to wonder if those giant dust clouds that blackened the sky during the 1930s were the result of Prohibition.
From what I've learned from listening, irrigation ditches are very important to the level of the water table. The irrigation ditch takes water from a large stream or river, which lowers it's volume, but at the same time this diverted water raises the underground water levels in the areas that it flows through. Irrigation ditches keep the surrounding land moist and make it easier to dig wells. The water is not wasted, only moved around from the river to the land. It doesn't deplete anything. In fact, it improves the ecosystem and protects it.
When irrigation stops because the land is no longer farmed the water table drops and things dry up rather quickly. When things are excessively dry they repel moisture, rather than retaining it. Grass and foliage begins to die. Summer heat worsens conditions and winter snows blow across the land, rather than settling down because there is nothing to hold it. The land and climate become desert. We can currently observe this desertification process taking place in formerly fertile valleys in California where irrigation has been banned to "protect" the environment. The orchards and farmland are parched and it's destroying the environment as well as essential foods depended upon by American children for good health.
When the Volstead Act went into effect it dramatically cut down on how much grain needed to be produced, for alcohol is a grain product. Many farmers held on, but it became more and more difficult since their crops were no longer in demand for alcohol production. Many farmers could not afford to plant their fields and left them to go fallow. No longer did they need as much irrigation.
The prairies began to dry up after the Volstead Act and the rains stopped coming after years of plentiful moisture. It's entirely possible that the irrigated land had actually attracted that rain and that after the Volstead, with less irrigation, the ecosystem was altered and no longer attracted the rains. The unworked fields along with less irrigation caused a drought. No longer was the soil held down by crops or moist soil, and by the 1930s large clouds of dust were rolling from the Western prairies all the way to the cities of the East Coast, blocking the sun, turning day to night.
But, of course, we read that the Dust Bowl was the fault of greedy and uneducated farmers that practiced negligent farming practices and depleted the soils. I doubt this. We always blame the individual and the victim in this country. I surmise that the poverty-stricken farmers could not afford to properly maintain the land as a result of the Volstead Act. But unless one has been very poor they will never understand this, and how impossible it is to maintain things and do things the right way without money to do it with.
And because of the Volstead Act and its destruction of the land and of farms, this lead to the government takeover during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, of many farms. Roosevelt doled out paltry sums of money to destitute farmers if they would give their lives and independence to farm as he instructed. Roosevelt implemented massive hog and cattle-killing programs in which farmers turned in their livestock in return for money to feed the kids. Then, the government killed these animals, wasting them like a giant sacrifice upon the land.
If we look back at a time in history that occurred not so long ago we can see that there is not one good or healthy aspect of Prohibition. It causes crime, monopoly, poverty, despair, immorality, and even ecological disaster. Prohibition harms most those it is said it will protect: Women and children.
image: Dust Storm, Stratford, TX, 18 April 1935, NOAA George E. Marsh Album
No comments:
Post a Comment