Peterson Killarney pipes, $50.00 at P&C

That's a great deal, but bad tydings regarding Utah and South Dakota. I knew about Washington's ban, but didn't realize that Utah and South Dakota had followed suit. Deep and/or wide, Patchers.

No cutty, no bueno. Screw em anyway for not shipping to Utah. Russ O is dead to me.

I am not so sure that South Dakota has a ban on internet sales of tobaccco, speculation on my part but I bet it has more to do with compliance on the state tax.


There was a bill circulated in the house last year “for the children” to ban federally, internet sales of pipe tobacco that stalled, it will be interesting to see if it gets traction in the next few years.

Gotta use the code mentioned, KP49. Knocked it down to $49.99.

I need a new pipe like I need another “ hole “ in my head!!! Plus, not a fan of any newer Pete’s.

P&C? They'll probably experience an inventory error in shipping and suddenly not available.

 I know but those guys aren't as fun as you guys and they think a pipe is only good to complete the word windpipe which they all use to the fullest extent.

To be honest the pipes were not terrible in the 2000s, 2010s.  Every once in awhile you had a dud.  I'll be honest, though, all of the pipes that I bought during that time period were really nice.  No major issues.  Aside from maybe like the gold "P" on some of the stems weathering too fast.  But you see that even in more expensive pipes, so I don't know.

That was recently discussed on a podcast with Sykes or Shane Ireland... it was said that will be front and center.

That reminds me, I need to email Sykes in that regard, I had quite a revelation on an old P-lip compared to a more recent P-lip... the old one is infinitely better with a larger draft hole, and the boomerang stem deserves a re-introduction.

That's not quite true. An out-of-state company has zero obligation to honor the laws of another state. That's why SP still happily ships to WA... it's not their problem.

If I read that right, these guys also ship to WA, just not Utah or South Dakota?

Also, those state bans, unenforceable though they may be, usually only apply to tobacco anyway. No reason why you couldn't order a block of wood with a hole drilled in it.

So it seems kinda likely this is about something else.

Maybe the way SP feels about it, they are willing to chance it?

The way I read the law as written, if I were an online seller I wouldn’t do it.

apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.155.140



I certainly wouldn’t want a felony conviction.



www.atg.wa.gov/ban-internet-and-mail-order-tobacco-sales

All it would take to get their butt in a sling is for the state ran tobacco control bureaucracy to find a kid that ordered tobacco online...to probably create an additional violation.

From P&C:



I think it is safe to say that each retailer has to make their own choice based on their counsel... I understand an organization that chooses not to risk shipping to any state based on how they perceive that state conducts themselves.... states have pretty much an unlimited budget to pursue a company in the hopes of getting a hefty settlement.

There are too many victorious court cases regarding buying cigarettes online to inform an out of state tobacconist on whether they want to risk the chance.

My earlier point is still valid regardless, the state legislature and the governor set the tone on whether or not an online seller chooses to do business there.
I certainly don’t fault the retailer... it certainly isn’t done because they want to restrict sales.

Well, this is where I'm not sure I agree. If it's true that a company based elsewhere is not bound by another state's law (the "if" caveat because I'm not an attorney, though those I've spoken to assure me this is generally true), then a company arbitrarily choosing not to do business with the residents of a state because of a law that doesn't even apply to them WOULD seem to be an odd desire to restrict sales.

Perhaps it depends on where the company is based. Maybe California and Washington, for instance, have some sort of reciprocity in this case. It would be interesting to know the details.

Knowing corporate legal departments as I do though, it's very hard for me to believe that SP and others are just cavalierly ignoring a law under which they could reasonably expect to be prosecuted or litigated.

Thanks, Charlie! Mine's on the way.