Tennessee Proposed Bill SB2086

E-mail sent to my representative, both houses.

I included in the e-mail the fact that the proposed legislation would have zero effect on the voters in the bill's sponsors area, as they live in an urban area and can easily drive to a place where such products are available. Those of us in rural areas would be the only ones affected.

In other words, the whole thing is a grand-stand play to sway the authoritarian socialists that his district is full of while oppressing the rights and opportunities of those not living in his district.

@Yakster said:
For our folks in TN, please call your legislators about opposing SB2086

In particular line:
“57-8-111. Delivery sales prohibited.
All sales of tobacco products must be conducted in-person in the licensed
location. It is unlawful for a licensed tobacco product retailer or the retailer's agents or
employees to sell, offer for sale, or deliver a tobacco product to a consumer in a manner
other than an in-person, over-the-counter transaction at the location of the tobacco
product retailer's licensed retail store.”

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Bill/SB2086.pdf

That one showed up as today. ^^

@silvermouse said:
Introduced to protect the B&Ms or to generate compliance with the tax codes ?

No significant B&Ms within 150 miles of me, we're already paying taxes on what gets shipped, no, I'm going with low risk self-aggrandizement on the part of the legislator in question.

@Vision said:

@Amos_Umwhat said:
E-mail sent to my representative, both houses.

I included in the e-mail the fact that the proposed legislation would have zero effect on the voters in the bill's sponsors area, as they live in an urban area and can easily drive to a place where such products are available. Those of us in rural areas would be the only ones affected.

In other words, the whole thing is a grand-stand play to sway the authoritarian socialists that his district is full of while oppressing the rights and opportunities of those not living in his district.

You know this was a Republican agenda, correct?

As reported by Half Wheel
The bill was introduced by Sen. Shane Reeves, R-Murfreesboro, and has four other Republican co-sponsors.

I love that you immediately went and blamed socialists lol

BTW. Not new for this guy, who is a pharmacist whom opposes tobacco.

https://halfwheel.com/tennessee-lawmakers-push-for-tobacco-purchasing-age-increase/295494/

lol, yes, I did know. Many R's are not immune from socialistic attitudes, I feel this is one of those. Did you assume that by socialist I meant Democrat? Not so. Like some others, I believe in ideas, not party politics.

Recently I've been defending Republicans from what I believe to be spurious and unwarranted attacks, just as I did with Obama, and Muslims in general a few years back. First one side and then the other gets carried away, in my opinion, and I disagree with what they're doing or saying. It has little or nothing to do with the labels that they and others affix.

But, I suppose I affix the labels as well, the difference being that I'm describing the idea, more than the individual. I'm human too, though, and can also fall into the tribal mode of thought.

So, I'm against the bill, and the idea behind it, and I don't care which party is to blame, I remain unchanged.

I don’t have time for this.
Is there any chance in hell that this will pass?

If it does pass reach out to me and I can share a few places I've discovered here in Utah that will still ship.

Dont forget to mention to them that smoking is a personal choice and is really none of their business.

@ShawnOL said:
Dont forget to mention to them that smoking is a personal choice and is really none of their business.

Shawn, for me the crucible is Kant's Categorical Imperative. This is the idea that if you want to know if a law or rule is "good", you ask what would happen if it is distributed evenly across the board. So, for instance, if you're advocating for a law that states something like "All persons guilty of the rape and murder of a child should be punished at a minimum by spending the rest of their life in jail", you then ask "What would happen if this were applied evenly to all those guilty of the infraction, whether or not they'd ever been caught? Would society be better off?" For me the obvious answer is a resounding "YES".

So, in the case in question here, I ask "What would happen if ALL online sales were treated in the manner desired by the proponents of the bill?" Obviously it would end all online sales. Probably not considered "good". So, it is clearly a case of blatant discrimination against a certain minority, us, and is not intended to treat everyone in the same manner.

I'm guessing that the rationale used by the RINO state representative is based in his personal feelings about tobacco use, propped up by fallacious reasoning and excuses about supporting local businesses etc. Doesn't matter, does it? It is, in fact, merely authoritarian socialism in action. The (R) behind his name and title is a meaningless cover up, or at a minimum a self-delusion on his part intended to deny his nanny-state beliefs.

I'm not fooled by the tactic, but some amongst us, perhaps many, are.

@Amos_Umwhat said:

@ShawnOL said:
Dont forget to mention to them that smoking is a personal choice and is really none of their business.

Shawn, for me the crucible is Kant's Categorical Imperative. This is the idea that if you want to know if a law or rule is "good", you ask what would happen if it is distributed evenly across the board. So, for instance, if you're advocating for a law that states something like "All persons guilty of the rape and murder of a child should be punished at a minimum by spending the rest of their life in jail", you then ask "What would happen if this were applied evenly to all those guilty of the infraction, whether or not they'd ever been caught? Would society be better off?" For me the obvious answer is a resounding "YES".

So, in the case in question here, I ask "What would happen if ALL online sales were treated in the manner desired by the proponents of the bill?" Obviously it would end all online sales. Probably not considered "good". So, it is clearly a case of blatant discrimination against a certain minority, us, and is not intended to treat everyone in the same manner.

I'm guessing that the rationale used by the RINO state representative is based in his personal feelings about tobacco use, propped up by fallacious reasoning and excuses about supporting local businesses etc. Doesn't matter, does it? It is, in fact, merely authoritarian socialism in action. The (R) behind his name and title is a meaningless cover up, or at a minimum a self-delusion on his part intended to deny his nanny-state beliefs.

I'm not fooled by the tactic, but some amongst us, perhaps many, are.

A lot of great points no doubt. But how’s it been a historically republican idea to tell people what they should and should not do with their bodies? I think this aligns pretty well with his political affiliation, no? Either way, I agree that people shouldn’t tell others what they can and can’t do in their personal time while not hurting other others or potentially putting peoples life in danger. But again he is staying consistent to the normal Republican/conservative message.

I do want to say this. I feel bad for the local small business owners who get affected by this stuff. But I for one will not go into a shop locally here in Massachusetts and spend $18 on a cigar that I can get online for four so my local shop keep can make two bucks off me. My government already takes enough money from me that I make I’m not gonna willingly give it to them. I think it’s absolutely crazy that because one guy somewhere feel some way about something that it will now affect a very small minority of people in his district or even state.

Edit. If there are any grammatical mistakes or spelling issues, sorry. Speech to text and I’m too lazy to go back to read it.

@peter4jc said:
"Either way, I agree that people shouldn’t tell others what they can and can’t do in their personal time while not hurting other others or potentially putting peoples life in danger."

Maybe you'd care to head to Political Discussions and explain at what point the "others" or "peoples" the others and peoples become worth protecting and when they are no longer susceptible to being discarded.

Nah, forget it. I don't need to open a can of worms. I just didn't want to ignore it, either. But it's an interesting thought experiment to ask what role the gummint has in protecting us from ourselves.

When it’s based in religious beliefs. None. And you opened that can of worms knowingly. I just didn’t want to ignore it.

I just want to add this as well. This speaks to a much larger issue. And no, we don’t need to get into that here, but it still comes down to voting in or out the politicians who we believe represent our beliefs.

@Vision said:

A lot of great points no doubt. But how’s it been a historically republican idea to tell people what

they should and should not do with their bodies? I think this aligns pretty well with his political affiliation, no?

I can't argue with that. I agree, it's all too common a behavior amongst "representatives" of any party. They cease to represent their constituents as much as they represent their personal prejudices. I'm always impressed when it's otherwise, which is not too often on either side of the aisle.