Gov. Schwarzenegger banned from Sacramento cigar shop

That's great..but is it legal? :tu
All states have slight differences in their laws and this is Kali, but business' can refuse service to individuals. When O.J. was in town for the Derby a steak house refused service to him.

It's great that they are making a stand on this and calling him out.
 
Good for them. Sure they lost his business, but its a great way to take a stand. Here in CA, every business has the right to refuse service to anyone!
Scott
 
Re: Local cigar shop refuses service to the Govenator

GET TO DA CHOPPAH!!

Awesome, at first I thought "aw that wasn't cool!" then I read everything and now I'm all for it.

Send In My Secret Shoppah!.

Good for them, I shall patronize this establishment.
 
This is reminiscent of JFK's sending Pierre Salinger out to buy several hundred boxes of Havana cigars the day before he signed the Cuban trade embargo.

"Sorry, no more Cuban cigars for U.S. citizens. (I got mine...) Larry.
 
Wow you guys are hardcore. I think its completely cool that he smokes and supports a tax on cigars. To a degree its irrelevent when you have Arnold money but I also don't consider SCHIP the worst of all possible worlds. After all it won't stop me from buying cigars, I'll just buy fewer of them.
 
Wow you guys are hardcore. I think its completely cool that he smokes and supports a tax on cigars. To a degree its irrelevent when you have Arnold money but I also don't consider SCHIP the worst of all possible worlds. After all it won't stop me from buying cigars, I'll just buy fewer of them.

Except that it's killing all of our local cigar shops because cigars online are a 1/3 the price.
 
Except that it's killing all of our local cigar shops because cigars online are a 1/3 the price.

But this is capitalism, no? With the internet, certain traditional businesses must evolve or die. Harsh, I know, especially when people have spent a lot of time becoming valued customers and sometimes friends with their local B%M's, but thats the nature of the game. Arguing that the cigar taxes are putting people out of business because of online sales is basically arguing that B&M owners need some sort of government protection to stay in business. Bottom line is that people find the lowest price and buy at that price. Those who don't compete go away. Even if all taxes were abolished on tobacco, internet sites would be able to sell cigars cheaper due to lower operating costs.

If the government wanted to tax cigars and keep small businesses alive, they'd have to also start collecting taxes on internet sales across state lines which would ensure that the prices wouldn't be different whether you ordered online or walked over to your local B&M.

Ask the big music companies how their profits are looking now that with the advent of itunes and similar services we no longer have to buy a whole CD or record just for one song. Or how about the big TV networks and Cable stations, who now have to compete against the internet as the main entertainment source in people's homes.

Just my :2 and probably bad economic/business analysis :) and for the record I am against high tobacco taxes because naturally as a cigar smoker, I want to buy cigars at as low a cost as possible.
 
Ahnold is not going to be phased. He has stated that he is not done with pushing the cigar tax. Anything he can do to continue to turn his back on his promises and conservatives...
 
But this is capitalism, no? With the internet, certain traditional businesses must evolve or die. Harsh, I know, especially when people have spent a lot of time becoming valued customers and sometimes friends with their local B%M's, but thats the nature of the game. Arguing that the cigar taxes are putting people out of business because of online sales is basically arguing that B&M owners need some sort of government protection to stay in business. Bottom line is that people find the lowest price and buy at that price. Those who don't compete go away. Even if all taxes were abolished on tobacco, internet sites would be able to sell cigars cheaper due to lower operating costs.

If the government wanted to tax cigars and keep small businesses alive, they'd have to also start collecting taxes on internet sales across state lines which would ensure that the prices wouldn't be different whether you ordered online or walked over to your local B&M.

Ask the big music companies how their profits are looking now that with the advent of itunes and similar services we no longer have to buy a whole CD or record just for one song. Or how about the big TV networks and Cable stations, who now have to compete against the internet as the main entertainment source in people's homes.

Just my :2 and probably bad economic/business analysis :) and for the record I am against high tobacco taxes because naturally as a cigar smoker, I want to buy cigars at as low a cost as possible.

well, my analysis is no better than yours, but I disagree with the "it's capitalism, right?" part. It's not as if the original poster was asking for government intervention against online retailers to make things more competitive for local businesses. It is the government intervention itself that creates the imbalance.

Normally we praise free market capitalism because it rewards things we value, good products, good customer service, efficiency. In this case we are simply rewarding a business not having a local presence by taxing the business that DO (highly, I might add).

my :2
 
It's not as if the original poster was asking for government intervention against online retailers to make things more competitive for local businesses. It is the government intervention itself that creates the imbalance.

Exactly.
 
well, my analysis is no better than yours, but I disagree with the "it's capitalism, right?" part. It's not as if the original poster was asking for government intervention against online retailers to make things more competitive for local businesses. It is the government intervention itself that creates the imbalance.

Normally we praise free market capitalism because it rewards things we value, good products, good customer service, efficiency. In this case we are simply rewarding a business not having a local presence by taxing the business that DO (highly, I might add).

my :2

Fizguy, I agree with you 100%. I misconstrued the statement. I guess I am making the assumption that taxes are here to stay and thus, B&M's will take the fall...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top