FDA Recruits Minors For Online Cigarette Purchases

[Wilikon]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently solicited quotes from contractors to recruit minors ages sixteen and seventeen to purchase "regulated tobacco products" on the Internet. The purchase attempts must be made from a facility located in Virginia and shipped to a P.O. Box provided by the FDA for purposes of this probe. The FDA is careful to note that the contractor must "debrief minors on the dangers of tobacco use" and that the minors "[agree] NOT to attempt to purchase tobacco products" outside of the FDA investigation.

All minors recruited as part of this program must have written approval from their parents or legal guardians. Once the contractor has obtained immunity for the jurisdiction in which the purchase is to be made, the minor is to make the purchase over the Internet under the supervision of the contractor. Generally, a debit card or prepaid credit card designated for the project is to be used to establish the date, amount and location of the purchase. Although the identities of the minors are to be kept confidential, the documents warn that "in the event of possible enforcement or judicial action, however, the minor’s identity may be revealed, and the minor may need to provide a declaration and/or give oral testimony in a hearing."

[...]
Contractors are to attempt single purchases at no more than twenty-five different online tobacco vendors. The FDA anticipates that 80 percent of purchases attempted in this effort will be successful, although the agency concedes this is just an estimate.

Often government agencies conduct investigations of online businesses or other sites (and even individuals) using adults posing as minors. The FDA did not respond to an email inquiry why this particular investigation requires the involvement of actual minors. However, the documents accompanying the solicitation state that "minors are an integral part of conducting purchases of regulated tobacco products to ensure compliance" with applicable laws and related FDA regulations. In 2012, the FDA used minors while conducting inspections of retail tobacco establishments.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fda-recruits-minors-online-cigarettes-purchases_820288.html

[jaysabi]

This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?

[Wilikon]

This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?

When I post stuff like that my secret wish is we have freedom fighter lawyers here who would ask direct questions to the people in charge of governmental programs like that.

No I do not have that answer...

[TECSHARE]

This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?

A convoluted form of entrapment. I am willing to bet they target "vape" sites primarily. The FDA has shown itself to be little more than a tool of selective enforcement designed to protect industry monopolies.

[jaysabi]

This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?

A convoluted form of entrapment. I am willing to bet they target "vape" sites primarily. The FDA has shown itself to be little more than a tool of selective enforcement designed to protect industry monopolies.

Right, but they were already engaging in entrapment by using people posing as minors. Now they're actually using minors. I'm just wondering why they changed their entrapment program. It seems like a meaningless change, but it was deliberate, so there has to be a reason for it.

[Wilikon]

This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?

A convoluted form of entrapment. I am willing to bet they target "vape" sites primarily. The FDA has shown itself to be little more than a tool of selective enforcement designed to protect industry monopolies.

Right, but they were already engaging in entrapment by using people posing as minors. Now they're actually using minors. I'm just wondering why they changed their entrapment program. It seems like a meaningless change, but it was deliberate, so there has to be a reason for it.

...Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Pure power wants more power. Think of it as Political Gravity.... You see it all the time, no matter the scale, the number of people, were they live, etc...

[jaysabi]

This is a weird departure from standard practice. Any speculation as to why they would deliberately do this?

A convoluted form of entrapment. I am willing to bet they target "vape" sites primarily. The FDA has shown itself to be little more than a tool of selective enforcement designed to protect industry monopolies.

Right, but they were already engaging in entrapment by using people posing as minors. Now they're actually using minors. I'm just wondering why they changed their entrapment program. It seems like a meaningless change, but it was deliberate, so there has to be a reason for it.

...Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Pure power wants more power. Think of it as Political Gravity.... You see it all the time, no matter the scale, the number of people, were they live, etc...

I subscribe to Occam's Razor, but the conclusion still has to make sense. I don't see how using minors to buy cigarettes plays into your political gravity theory, or increases power for the FDA.

I was wondering if using minors in the sting somehow allows them to push for steeper penalties, but that makes little sense as well. But for as little sense as that makes, I can't currently think of any other reason they would be doing this.

[Swordsoffreedom]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

[jaysabi]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice.

[TECSHARE]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice.

Using actual minors might be what puts the actual penalty of law into effect. Additionally I bet they use this as cause for large civil asset forfeitures, really crushing small business competition. The whole department gets free vape sets!

[jaysabi]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice.

Using actual minors might be what puts the actual penalty of law into effect.

I was kinda wondering if something like this was the case, but it can't be this exactly because they've never used minors before while conducting sting operations, and if there  was no penalty of law in those cases, they would immediately be thrown out and programs like that wouldn't exist.

[sl@ppy]

I used to work at a liquor store and they would send in straight up minors. The problem for them was this was a neighborhood store so every customer came in almost daily. Some kid walks up to the front, and keeps looking to the side, then comes in and asks for cigs. That is a dead giveaway. So what I started to do was card them, when they had no ID, I would then start yelling at them to get out which would make them freeze, then I would come over the counter and physically throw them into the parking lot. Then the agents would come in trying to tell me I was under arrest for beating a minor and I would turn it back on them about gov corrupting minors and they would all leave

[TECSHARE]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice.

Using actual minors might be what puts the actual penalty of law into effect.

I was kinda wondering if something like this was the case, but it can't be this exactly because they've never used minors before while conducting sting operations, and if there  was no penalty of law in those cases, they would immediately be thrown out and programs like that wouldn't exist.

There may be more than one statute to prosecute under.

[exoton]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice.

It is my understanding that the law reads something along the lines of that it is illegal to sell cigs to miners. Most stores use aggressive "carding" policies in order to remain compliant with these laws. If the police/prosecutor cannot prove that a store/clerk sold cigs to a miner then they would not be able to prosecute.

[malaimult]

This seems like a baiting more than anything else, I don't think this would stand up in a court of law.
Hard to verify a persons age online, since it is not meeting someone in person
If they deny the credit card then they are in the clear I guess.

I would think it would be baiting whether or not actual minors are used, but apparently it's not, because these sting operations are a standard practice.

Using actual minors might be what puts the actual penalty of law into effect. Additionally I bet they use this as cause for large civil asset forfeitures, really crushing small business competition. The whole department gets free vape sets!

I think you are probably right about the use of miners buying causing the law to come into effect, especially if the company does not actually do anything to verify the buyer's identity/age prior to the actual delivery of such product.

While I do disagree with your above comment about this being entrapment as the company is not being enticed into breaking the law by the fact that a minor buys their product