|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 04:07 pm: Edit|
Here is the FDA CFR, current to year 2000. If you can find the regulation, your web-fu is mightier than mine:
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 11:05 am: Edit|
The state of the law is largely irrelevant. It's the state of enforcement that matters. Are federal agencies going to commit thousand of man-hours to investigate and prosecute absinthe cases? In the end this would have to be justified to Congress. It honestly can't be. So they are not doing so.
Oh, Big Liquor still can't touch absinthe in the USA, but that's all. Customs is not interdicting small shipments, and failing that, the rest is blue smoke and mirrors. If I were running a bar in the US I might be concerned about having absinthe on the premises for sale, as ATF and state ABC cops have been known to spot check inventories for watering etc. (hydrometers and all.) But Marc doesn't seem to regard this as a problem. And he would know better than I.
There are x-number of absinthe resellers in USA, and I am unaware of any of them having any problem, although I think their asses are hanging way out there.
Absinthe makers outside of USA, in countries where absinthe is not illegal, have nothing to be concerned about. SC, sleep well at night. You can't be extradited for a 'crime' that is not a crime in your country. Absinthe is NOT a drug, nor a controlled substance, it is legal in EU, the US FDA regs are contradictory, and based on bad science. How does one assay for A.absinthium? One doesn't, one assays for thujone. If one assays for thujone one can find it in lots of things and regulations that are 'arbitrary and capricious' are awfully hard to enforce.
|By Tabreaux on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 09:25 am: Edit|
The reg exists, as I have found it in the current FDA CFR. If it is online or not, I do not know. Go find an FDA CFR and you will find it.
The reg clearly bans any alcoholic beverage that contains A. absinthium, period. If it fits that definition, it is prohibited. Prepared food laws specify limitations on legal foodstuffs, and have no bearing on otherwise prohibited items. I've obtained legal opinions on this long ago.
"Regardless, as far as I know, they don't arrest people for BUYING unsafe foodstuffs..."
Neither can they arrest people for BUYING absinthe. They can give them grief for IMPORTING absinthe, for DISTILLING absinthe (or anything else for that matter), and for SELLING absinthe, but not buying it. The logic is simple.
|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 08:48 am: Edit|
Yup. The CFR can be searched at:
and the USC at:
and a slightly faster engine at:
The GPO search engines are ungodly slow, mind you, but searching variously for absinthe, absinth, absinth*, absinthium, artemisia, wormwood and thujone, all I have been able to come up with are food additive guidelines, pestacide regulations, and classifications of commodity crops.
tThe food additive regulation is sufficent to ban the sale or importation of absinthe in the US, but, as I pointed out, it DOES allow for the use of any Artemisia species is "prepared foods" if the food is "thujone free." So, theoretically, a product made with A. absinthium, but from which the thujone has been removed (as is the claim of Oxygenee and other French products) should probably be legal in the US.
Regardless, as far as I know, they don't arrest people for BUYING unsafe foodstuffs...
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 08:30 am: Edit|
Both the US Code (USC), which is the Federal laws, and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR, regulations implimenting law) are extensively cross-indexed and ought to be by now, hypertexted online all to hell.
If it isn't in USC it isn't US federal law, and if it isn't in CFR it isn't part of the 'underlaw' of administrative and regulatory law.
Blackjack, I assume you have done a masterful job of searching all this? I have not.
|By _Blackjack on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 07:20 am: Edit|
I realize that there was a ban on absinthe pre-dating the present food purity regulations (the most recent version of which date from the '70's), but that law no longer appears to be on the books, or, if it is, I cannot find it. This is not an unlikely situation, since a great many older laws and regulations have been revised and combined under newer, usually more far-reaching laws. We don't need the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1916, for instance, since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 gives the federal government a LOT more power...
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 - 03:12 am: Edit|
The ATF is the old Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, it just got bumped up to bureau status in '68 and rechristened. It already had firearms responsibility for Title II firearms as well, since 1934. These are the old Revenooers and the Untouchables as well.
They have responsibility for regulatory and licensing as well as criminal enforcement of federal wine, beer and liquor laws, including standards and labelling.
FDA, since beverages are food whether alcoholic or not, also has regulatory responsibility for ingredients.
Neither is responsible for interdiction of imports of absinthe, that is the sole role of US Customs. ATF would have primary role in going after domestic US absinthe makers, or resellers within the US. FDA would have authority over any manufacturer or seller in interstate commerce of food additives it prohibits, such as thujone.
However, that's all hypothetical, as Customs is not paying the slightest attention to absinthe, which is way down their list of priorities from, say, Amazonian parrot smuggling, just as an example. (Vector of Newcastle's Disease.) ATF is busy going after drug gangs for gun violations, as well as misc crazies and bombers. FDA has lots of other fish to fry as well.
If ATF HAS decided to pay attention to absinthe, which I doubt, they wouldn't be looking at someone buying from SC for personal use. Amd if this 'fratboy pothead' ordered more than a personal-use qty of any liquor, it'd be Customs that would refuse to release his shipment till he obtained an ATF import license, that's all. And collected his duty on the booze. But a seizure and arrest is absurd, and ATF is the wrong agency to be doing it. So, the guy is lying, just to stir shit up, and deserves our opprobrium, with prejudice.
|By Morriganlefey on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 05:41 pm: Edit|
Vera - I wondered about that too (especially after reading his personal quote - 'it's 4:20' is fratboy pothead-speak for smoking a fatty). But then he does go on to say "I will never order from SC again. Why I was chosen, I will never figure." This DOES rather point the proverbial finger at absinthe.
He's (unfortunately) from my own town, so I'll study his shirtless profile picture (with no great joy, I might add) and should I ever bump into him I will #1 slap him, and #2 drag him to a monitor to post a retraction / apology.
|By Verawench on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 05:20 pm: Edit|
I still think Eleusis owes us an explanation.. his previous posts have been scarce but harmless and he never seemed like a trouble maker of THIS caliber... this sort of nonsense usually flows from newbies.
"I got the same letter with a visit to my home from our local ATF with a warrent and a nice day in jail for possesion of a banned substance."
Perhaps he didn't mean absinthe at all? Just being careful with illegal imports in general?
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:55 pm: Edit|
Of course he won't respond that's because he's
...hit it Wesley...
|By Tabreaux on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:28 pm: Edit|
Just for clarification, the ban on absinthe was written before there was an FDA. When the FDA was formed, it assumed responsibility for enforcement of laws pertaining to foods, drugs, and alcoholic beverages. When the BATF was formed, it assumed the responsibility for enforcement of FDA laws pertaining to alcoholic beverages.
|By Tabreaux on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:23 pm: Edit|
The FDA regs specify the quality rules for alcoholic beverages. Enforcement of the laws concerning alcohlic beverages was shifted from the FDA to the BATF some years ago. The BATF is responsible for certification of an alcoholic beverage for importation and/or sale in the U.S. The BATF follows the FDA regs in considering an alcoholic beverage as being fit for importation to the U.S. The BATF is responsible for enforcing the legal production and sale of alcoholic beverages, and the taxation associated therewith. Meanwhile, U.S. Customs enforces the BATF rules regarding the importation of alcoholic beverages, which like I pointed out, are subject to FDA regs.
I have an FDA CFR somewhere, and I've seen the ban on absinthe as it is written. I don't see in online (get the codebook). This law was passed in 1912, and is the law from which the importation quote was taken. There was no means of measuring thujone way back when, which is why this is not specified in any laws written at the time in the U.S., France, Swtizerland, etc. Therefore, where the ban of absinthe is concerned, thujone content is a non-issue. With that being apparent, any thujone guidelines apply to legal foods and beverages. Since absinthe or any other alcoholic beverage that contains A. absinthium is illegal, the thujone guidelines are irrelevent.
As far as I can see, the manufacture, importation, and sale of absinthe is prohibited. The possession and purchase is not.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 03:42 pm: Edit|
I also found this, which is from Erowid, so it should be taken cum monte salis, but it does have one interesting thing to point out:
"But as far as I know, the FDA's rules don't allow them to prosecute buyers of unapproved foods & drugs, only the sellers."
I have found the same sentence about importing absinth being prohibited on several FDA pages, but none of them cite the authoritative regulation. The ban on wormwood-as-food-additive is enough to ban importation of absinthe, and I am beginning to wonder if that's all there is...
|By _Blackjack on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 02:37 pm: Edit|
Those are not the regulations governing alcoholic beverages, but rather foodstuffs.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 02:35 pm: Edit|
I've seen the statement (it is also on the FDA site) but it is not an actual regulation, it is just part of a publication for businesses clarifying import regulations. The particular paragraph involves defininging who has jurisdiction over impurities and dangerous substances in imported alcoholic beverages, to wit, the FDA, as you said, and not the BATF.
"Questions dealing with the presence of deleterious substances in alcoholic beverages (such as excess fusel oil and excess aldehydes in whisky, methyl alcohol in brandy, glass splinters from defective bottles, toxic ingredients, such as arsenic, lead, or fluorine, resulting from the spraying of the fruit used in wine manufacture, and residues of toxic clarifying substances) are also dealt with by the Food and Drug Administration, as are questions relating to sanitation and filth. The importation of absinth and any other liquors or liqueurs that contain an excess of Artemisia absinthium is prohibited. "
It does cite a regulation, but the reg does not mention absinth(e), wormwood or artemisia ssp. at all. It's mostly about labeling
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Part 16
|By Tabreaux on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:40 pm: Edit|
"The regulations DO mention thujone and, for some reason, seem to allow wormwood and various other thujone-bearing plants to be used as food additive if the product is "thujone-free," yet sage and tarragon have no restrictions at all."
Those are not the regulations governing alcoholic beverages, but rather foodstuffs.
Here is the statement from U.S. Customs verbatim, as taken from BATF regs:
"The importation of Absinthe and any other liquors or liqueurs that contain an excess of Artemisia absinthium is prohibited."
Unless the logic is faulty (doubtful), this states that the importation of something claimed to be Absinthe and anything else that contains A. absinthium is prohibited. This being the case, thujone content is irrelevent. Thujone or no thujone, call it absinthe, or make it using A. absinthium and it is illegal.
|By Cheri on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:16 pm: Edit|
If it helps any, for those who are awaiting packages, I received (or rather my friend in Pennsylvania received) my SC order today that was placed on 7/9.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 01:11 pm: Edit|
To start, thujone has nothing to do with the U.S. law. It is not mentioned specifically. The U.S. law simply states: "The sale and importation absinthe, or any liquor that contains an excess of A. absinthium, is prohibited".
|By Tabreaux on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit|
With a trip to jail comes an investigation, charges, docket numbers, and far more paperwork than a silly letter. You won't see any of it because it is all a fairy tale, not not a very well thought out one. If it weren't you wouldn't see it casually mentioned in a post beginning with "Ho Ho Hee Hee Haww Haww..."
I can write a list of holes in this story, but I won't waste my time.
None of this has happened because it is even more stupid than phony.
|By Chrysippvs on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 11:16 am: Edit|
actually this person has posted quite a bit in the past...(s)he should do him(her)-self a favor and scan some of the paper they received. I would be interested in seeing it, and if nothing else it would lend credence to this otherwise fantastic story.
|By Heiko on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 10:26 am: Edit|
I guess we will not see any more posts of 'Eleusis' from now on. I knew from the beginning this would be a one-timer. Somehow, I knew - don't ask me why ;-)
|By Tabreaux on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:33 am: Edit|
Regardless, there is absolutely no excuse for perpetrating such an outright, malicious lie. This scare tactic has an underlying purpose, which is obvious. An individual who receives a bottle of absinthe or whatever else declared as a 'gift' has little to be concerned about. However, an individual who imports or manufactures a quantity of prohibited items for resale has a great deal to be concerned about. Nonetheless, as far as I am concerned, this person has perjured himself permanently.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:14 am: Edit|
"I say obliterate his account on this forum. I don't appreciate this kind of mental terrorism."
Stalin would be proud of you.
|By Verawench on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 09:08 am: Edit|
"Disregard *anything* posted by this person in the future"
I say obliterate his account on this forum. I don't appreciate this kind of mental terrorism.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 07:21 am: Edit|
Ted, I agree. Although it is unclear from his post that the $7000 was supposed to be fines/civil penalties, legal fees, or a combination of the above -- the simple fact is that ATF jurisdiction is not involved, and therefore, the credibility of the post falls apart on that point.
This could be anyone, even ATF themselves, trying to throw a scare. But most likely it is the sole remaining smuggler for resale into USA, out to convince people that ordering from abroad is hazardous, which it is NOT.
Even BATF has bigger fish to fry, God knows Customs does, DEA and the FBI could care less, and so, things remain as they were, there is no Federal interest in this matter, and the laws that are pertinent to absinthe (as you say not thujone) are archaic and hard to enforce.
Nobody, in federal law enforcement, cares about absinthe, mostly because it is just booze and also because no one knows much about it. If they were well informed, they'd know that the old prohibitions were bullshit, and that would keep their level of interest at about the same as for 'electrical bananas' -- psychotropics that do not exist!
Who cares about 'contraband' aperitifs?
Even the French barriers are going to crumble...
And the Swiss.
|By Tabreaux on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 06:10 am: Edit|
What Eleusis posted is a lie.
To start, thujone has nothing to do with the U.S. law. It is not mentioned specifically. The U.S. law simply states: "The sale and importation absinthe, or any liquor that contains an excess of A. absinthium, is prohibited".
Simple importation of a prohibited item for personal use is subject to an administrative action by customs (i.e. seizure), and is at the discretion of the customs officer. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the BATF (unless they think you are importing for resale). There is no worry about any court dates.
To claim that one was put in jail and fined $7000 for importation of a bottle of anything is an outright lie, and I find it disappointing that someone would deliberately spread such an evil rumor.
Disregard *anything* posted by this person in the future.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 05:03 am: Edit|
Cheri, nothing to be ashamed about. Absenta.com is New Millenium, distributor for MM but they also sell Deva. James is a nice guy. I dunno why he shipped USPS. Even so the odds were heavily in your favor. It's just one of those things, and as you say pertains to alcohol not to absinthe per se.
|By Cheri on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 04:44 am: Edit|
I was still extremely new and uninformed. I found out about SC just weeks later when I found this forum. I am so ashamed..
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, July 23, 2001 - 03:04 am: Edit|
'Eleusis' is just another example of B.S. being spread to foment paranoia by and for the benefit of a certain leech.
|By Verawench on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 05:50 pm: Edit|
Um... doesn't absenta only sell MM? Why would you want to buy it from them and not SC?
|By Cheri on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 05:28 pm: Edit|
This was an order from absenta.com which apparently was destined to come to me via the U.S. Mail. I don't know if it was opened, or if it was marked as to the contents, but they figured it out and sent me the letter. They didn't seemed to harp on the absinthe aspect, for they suggested that they next time I order alcohol I find another method other than the US Mail to have it shipped.
I have an SC order that was shipped and is still in transit. I know it's not the case above, for I have it shipped to a friend in Pennsylvania, which is a much friendlier state it seems than MD for shipping such things. Plus, I'm in a townhouse and anyone can really swipe things off my front stoop. In that case, the letter would have been addressed to him. However, my order from SC is taking a bit longer it seems than my first order that got to Pennsylvania in *4* working days. I want to put in another, but want to wait until this last one gets to me.
|By Webfly on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 05:16 pm: Edit|
My last 5 bottle order was also split into two shipments which were several days apart. You may be right about the stock issue, as I happened to order only 2 different brands, and each package contained 1 brand. I thought maybe SC did this to cut down shipping costs. If I figured right, shipping cost totaled maybe $12.00.
|By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 04:16 pm: Edit|
When you do the 5-bottle order sometimes they come all in one package, sometimes in two -- probably it has more to do with what's in stock than anything else.
I'd like to hear more details from Eleusis before slamming him straight off.
Also, Cheri, which vendor was the order in question shipped from?
It looks like people in the U.S. are likeliest to get their stuff seized when a bottle breaks or leaks, which makes it a little too obvious that alcohol is being shipped (against postal regs).
|By Leela on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 10:01 am: Edit|
I think something is just backed up with mail entry to the US in general...I am waiting for several articles from England (shoes, costume-making supplies) and they are very late, too.
|By Heiko on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 04:14 am: Edit|
...same with me - only the two packages arrived at the same time.
|By Scoobydoo on Sunday, July 22, 2001 - 03:19 am: Edit|
So what's the dilleo??
Are they cracking down?
I just got an order that came about 1 1/2 weeks ago. It was 5 bottles but split with 3 in one box on one day and then 2 in another box the next day.
|By Morriganlefey on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 10:36 am: Edit|
*blush*..oh you both flatter me so..do go on. Thank you - the picture is one of Kallisti's from the Bastille piqnique, made rather post-apocalyptic by me in Photoshop.
Blackjack, I've had the little Betty Paige bangs ever since childhood. I'll never get rid of 'em. (My eyes are so light sensitive that I get a horrific headache without the gentle shade of my beloved bangs. Creepy, eh?)
|By _Blackjack on Friday, July 20, 2001 - 12:26 am: Edit|
She really is quite fetching, isn't she? -sigh- ...girls with bangs...
(Oh, sorry, Marc. I wouldn't want to turn this into another Heiko is Beautiful thread...)
|By Verawench on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:25 pm: Edit|
Morrigan chickie! Love your new forum pic!!! You gorgeous green goddess you.
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:25 pm: Edit|
KALLISTI: EDITING ALERT.
See eleusis's idiotic post.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:44 pm: Edit|
Well Frater, as a young Downriver boy, my Momma used to administer my weekly Sitz bath. I had a problem getting myself wiped clean as most Downriver folks do. The local pharmacies had a wide variety of flavors. My favorite was Sitz "Bubble Gum". It was a little sudsey and when I had to pass wind, iridescent bubbles would float up out of the broiler pan I was soaking in. When the burning sensation and itching subsided Momma would pat my hiney dry and give me an electrolyte freezer pop. Oh the sweet memories of my youth.
Ask a Downriver man why he didn't use soap after poopin' and he'll tell you...
|By Morriganlefey on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:38 pm: Edit|
Wigs?!? Oh joy - then I'm moving to Oz, and I choose THIS wig:
|By Cheri on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:26 pm: Edit|
I would like to add, that since I've been drinking absinthe, I have not had a single problem with tapeworms. The medicinal proposition thus has my support.
|By Frater_Carfax on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 06:24 pm: Edit|
If you were in a good British colony like us Right Honourable Madam Justice LeFay you would be encouraged to wear wigs to!
Hey, I think I can see how you could tie all these political stances together....
Tobacco smoke was once used as an enema - and it has reputed vermifugal properties....
Cannabis also has some reputed vermifugal properties- do you think the FDA would deem rectal spliffs as acceptable medical use for the wacky tabaccy?
Head, is there a market for a health regime of posterior-orientated cannabis treatment with daily doses of absinthe? The outside world always get the impression that LA is the land of colonic cleansing- so perhaps there is an opportunity there......
|By Morriganlefey on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:41 pm: Edit|
Oh Carfax - oh that was GOoooOOOood! Me, a Senator?? Psssshaw. (Can I be a Supreme Court Justice instead? - the robes are more goth...)
If I were to join the political fray though, that'd be my platform. Tapeworm-free Living through Absinthium. I loathe tapeworms, and I have been a medical marijuana supporter here in SF for a number of years, so why not take it one step further?
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 05:40 pm: Edit|
In the wake of the majority vote passing Proposition 216, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura calls on Head_Prosthesis to join forces with Big Mango Don to create a parasite super tonic "Absinthe de' Garlique". 100mg of Thujone/800mg Garlic/180 proof.
|By Frater_Carfax on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 04:26 pm: Edit|
Today politicians started debate over the controversial Proposition 216- Medical Absinthe Law.
San Francisco based Senator Morrigan Lefay, who proposed the legislation was quoted as saying "The Tapeworm problem is in epidemic proportions, we have people scratching their asses all over the Bay area and the national health system is doing little to control it. The current price of pharmaceutical vermifuges are out of reach to the average American. The only cost effective way to combat the rampant march of intestinal parasites is to legalise the possession and use of Absinthe on medical grounds."
However, critics of the plan argue that such a move plays straight into the hands of New Orleans Absinthe cartels.
|By Morriganlefey on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 04:11 pm: Edit|
Pataphysician - I should have said "I'm with Blackjack on the possession vs. importation issue" - I misread who the post was attributed to.
|By Pataphysician on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 02:22 pm: Edit|
"I don't know what this is; I ordered a Spanish sausage"
And just how much sage is in that sausage, sir? We're going to test it for thujone.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 01:57 pm: Edit|
I would be interested to know under what section of the US Code you were charged, since I have not been able to find anything in the USC or in the FDA, BATF or USDA regulations which would make it illegal to POSESS absinthe. It would be illegal to produce, sell or import a product for human consumption which contained wormwood, unless all thujone had been removed. But not to posess it.
This means that, not only would they have to prove that you initiated the transfer of absinthe ("I don't know what this is; I ordered a Spanish sausage"), they would have to test the absinthe to prove it really had thujone in it, which would be easily impeachable in court by a compotent chemist, since the conventional methods seem to be wildly inaccurate.
I don't think SC would be in any danger, unless they really wanted to get the Spanish authorities involved, but they (and perhaps their merchant account provider) would be the only source of evidence that anyone deliberately tried to import the stuff. Since getting hold of their records would be a pain in the ass, even if they did so voluntarily, I doubt the US government would have bothered prosecuting anyone.
However, if Eleusis can provide some more details (a case number and court would be helpful), this could be very important. If the feds really are cracking down, I think we all need to know, and, moreover, we need to know on what grounds they are justifying such action.
|By Pataphysician on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 01:13 pm: Edit|
>And I'm with Pataphysician on the possession vs. importation issue.
Just to clarify, that wasn't me. I don't want to question Eleusis' honesty just yet, cause I don't know enough about these matters.
But I was wondering, assuming that his story is true, if it happened because he ordered an unusually large number of bottles.
|By Morriganlefey on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 12:52 pm: Edit|
I'm also from San Francisco, and know without doubt that our "local ATF" has MUCH bigger fish to fry than a single guy importing a few bottles of absinthe for personal consumption. The red tape that they have to go through to get that warrant is phenomenal. And I'm with Pataphysician on the possession vs. importation issue. A package on your doorstep does not constitute possession. If your story is true, you must have already been on the ATF hit list for other issues FAR bigger than absinthe (this is what I suspect).
Oh, and by mentioning ASO in your post, you've become not only an alarmist, but also one of those "bigmouths" you've just denounced.
I apologize in advance for my heated words, but this forum deserves truth, not scare tactics.
|By Verawench on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 12:49 pm: Edit|
"The Feds know about *** from some bigmouths on this board."
First of all, you're the only big mouth at the moment. Kallisti does a great job with the administrative vacuum cleaner. Do a key word search.
Second, as Blackjack mentioned, wouldn't this get SC in trouble as well?
Third, how do you just get "thrown" in jail without a trial? You didn't mention anything about defending yourself and whether or not you won/lost the case.
Fourth, if you had gotten the "same letter", why such dire consequences for you and not Cheri? Does she get better treatment cause she's a lady and you're a shirtless dude on a rock?
|By Verawench on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
Sounds like b.s. to me.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 12:28 pm: Edit|
Um, how did they prove that you had initiated the shipment? You claim they charged you with POSESSION. Did they search your premises and find other absinthe bottles? Unless you had actually recieved the packcage, they could only have charged you with importing it, and then they would have had to subpoena your credit card records and probably Spirits Corner's records in order to prove in court that you had actually initiated the shipment. Unless you did something stupid like copping a plea.
Unless you can fill in the holes in your story, I'm prone to skepticism.
|By Pataphysician on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 11:13 am: Edit|
How big was your shipment?
|By Eleusis on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:27 am: Edit|
Ho Ho Hee Hee Haww Haww...
I got the same letter with a visit to my home from our local ATF with a warrent and a nice day in jail for possesion of a banned substance. $7000.00 in fees and fines. Back to lurking. I will never order from SC again. Why I was chosen, I will never figure. Just be careful, That all folks. The Feds know about ***DELETED*** from some bigmouths on this board. SC needs to change the discription.
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 01:54 pm: Edit|
And as far as a "record" goes, there are no charges pressed, so technically, there is no record, tho I suspect there will be a big red X next to your name the next time you cross the border...
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 01:50 pm: Edit|
From a previous post of mine, regarding a letter I recieved alleging that items alledgedly more illegal than absinthe had allegedly been sent to me by mail from overseas and had been siezed by customs:
OK, I found the letter I got, and it was pretty much what I remembered, but I can see how Mike might have taken it differently. Basically, it says I have the option of either doing nothing, at which point the siezed items will be forfeited to the government in thirty days. It goes into a bunch of detail about how they post notices of seizure at the port of entry the first monday of the first month after the letter, and this may be where Mike go the court date thing. I can also request that the forfeiture porceedings begin immediately. Either way, if I want to fight the forfeiture, I have to either post a bond of 10% of the value of the property but not less that $250. I also can apply for administrative relief if I can't afford the bond. All of this is moot for a small item, especially one that isn't allowed anyway.
There was a "Penalty Information" section at the very end, where there were check boxes to mark if there was any additional civil penalty being assessed. It was not checked off on any of mine [...] I can see how it might scare somebody, but it's not a big deal. Customs has much bigger fish to fry.
|By Verawench on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
That's not so bad... I've heard rumors of fines and such. Any mention of this going on your record?
At least it's nothing like that nightmare I had a while back about U.S.C. showing up at my door, and being vewy vewy angwy.
|By Cheri on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 12:34 pm: Edit|
Option Number 1: You bad, we send back
Option Number 2: You bad, we keep, we drink
Option Number 3: You bad, dare dare double dare ya to come and get it.
|By Cheri on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 12:28 pm: Edit|
If we must know, and I do not know if one can say, however, let it be known that it was a letter stating that I got 3 options (none of which were very enticing) as to what to do about my package that the U.S. has gone postal over.
|By Blygdon on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 12:27 pm: Edit|
As much as I'm lurking avidly awaiting further news on Cheri's letter, I'd be extremely interested to know what "a love letter, straight from my heart... " from Head_Prosthesis might sound or look like.
|By Heiko on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 12:02 pm: Edit|
"Well do share or do not at all... What was this letter?"
I wanted to post something like this before, but it obviously didn't work, technically.
I just hate that kind of conversation "Something really bad happened" - "What was it?" - "I don't want to talk about it, uhm, nevermind..."
- ("So why the f*** did you open your mouth in the first place??!!").
My mind starts to spin with the worst conspiracy theories then...
|By Wolfgang on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 11:43 am: Edit|
Well do share or do not at all... What was this letter ?
|By Cheri on Wednesday, July 18, 2001 - 06:03 am: Edit|
If it helps, the letter I got wasn't in regards to a shipment from SC.. was from another source.
|By Perruche_Verte on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 11:03 pm: Edit|
Good time to check SC's policy on replacements, I guess.
|By Uncle on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 08:47 pm: Edit|
Now it's Dark.......
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 08:26 pm: Edit|
Would you like a letter, a love letter, straight from my heart...
|By Verawench on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 08:21 pm: Edit|
I didn't get a letter though.
|By Verawench on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 08:12 pm: Edit|
Ack... this is getting weird...
My SC order is waaaay overdue. 3 weeks + now
|By Cheri on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 06:25 pm: Edit|
I got a "letter" in the mail. I am not pleased. Sigh...
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation