1empireofpain
5confidencegames
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
499
3confidencegames
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
4confidencegames
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
1gucci
13albion
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
Learned Hand 360x1000
Tad Friend 360x1000
7albion
399
2albion
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Storyparadox1
2jesusandjohnwayne
Gilgamesh 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
1lauber
6albion
1albion
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
5albion
2confidencegames
6confidencegames
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
1falsewitness
10abion
199
Maria Popova 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
1theleasofus
11albion
3albion
1trap
1jesusandjohnwayne
2gucci
2falsewitness
2transadentilist
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
1madoff
2theleastofus
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
2lafayette
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
1confidencegames
LillianFaderman
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
9albion
2lookingforthegoodwar
3paradise
2trap
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
12albion
3theleastofus
14albion
1transcendentalist
storyparadox3
1lafayette
2defense
2paradise
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
299
7confidencegames
8albion'
1paradide
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
George F Wil...360x1000
4albion
storyparadox2
lifeinmiddlemarch2
11632
Richard Posner 360x1000
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
1defense
3defense

Originally published on Forbes.com.

At the risk of making my blog less edifying, I find that I want to make note of a Colorado Supreme Court decision – Colorado Department of Revenue v Creager Mercanitile Co, Inc.  It concerns blunts.  I believe that I have a sophisticated, intelligent, well educated readership. I mean just consider yourself for example. Nonetheless, many of you probably know little, if anything about blunts. A blunt allows you to be smoking tobacco and marijuana at the same time. The idea is that instead of using paper to roll a joint, you use the tobacco leaf wrapping that would be used for a cigar.  Originally people made blunts by cannibalizing cigars, but now blunt wraps are available.

Frankly I have to take my hat off to who ever thought blunts up.  Talk about being decadent.  The only thing I can think of that tops it is Irish coffee, with really heavy cream and extra sugar. If I ever write a hardboiled detective novel, my protagonist will relax by smoking a blunt while sipping Irish coffee.

Of course, there is a tax issue involved in all this.  As you probably know, most states tax tobacco products pretty heavily. The question is whether a blunt wrap is a tobacco product. This burning question had to be decided by Colorado’s highest court.

Definitions

The statutory definition of “tobacco products” include various kinds and forms of tobacco that can be chewed or smoked “in a pipe or otherwise”:

…cigars, cheroots, stogies, periques, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flour, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine-cut and other chewing tobaccos, shorts, refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing or for smoking in a pipe or otherwise, or both for chewing and smoking, but does not include cigarettes which are taxed separately.

Blunt wraps are not on the list, because they did not exist back in the pioneer days of 1986 when hearty pot smokers had to disassemble cigars, if they wanted to smoke blunts

The product evolved from rolling papers used to make roll-your-own cigars and cigarettes. Traditional rolling papers are sold in a sheath of small, dry papers that are folded together in a pop-up packet and can be pulled out one-by-one. In contrast to traditional rolling papers, Blunt Wraps are made from pulverized, homogenized tobacco leaves mixed with vegetable gum, and contain between thirty and forty-eight percent tobacco.

Blunt Wraps are packaged moist and are individually wrapped around a plastic straw in a sealed container. Before use, the straw is removed from the Blunt Wrap, leaving a pre-formed, small, hollow cigar shell. Like traditional rolling papers, Blunt Wraps are designed to be filled with tobacco, marijuana, or other smoking material and smoked. See generally Redman, How to Roll A Blunt, onWhut? Thee Album (Columbia Records 1992). When smoked, the Blunt Wrap is consumed along with the additional tobacco or other smoking material. (Emphasis added)

Hats Off To Gen X

I’m wondering whether that was the first time a state supreme court has cited a rap album as a source. It is worth noting that Justice Monica Marquez who wrote the opinion was, more or less, on her way to Yale Law School when Redman (Reginald Noble), who is about her age recorded his blunt rolling instructions in 1992.

The Ruling

The appellate court had ruled that blunt wraps were not tobacco products, because they were not suitable for smoking on their own. Judge Marquez and the majority disagreed.

No statutory language supports the conclusion that the shared characteristic of the tobacco products listed is that each is “a focus of consumption.” Rather, as explained above, the catchall category requires a tobacco product to be simply: (1) a “kind” or “form” of tobacco; and (2) prepared in a manner as to be “suitable” for chewing or for “smoking in a pipe or otherwise.” Blunt Wraps are: (1) a “kind” or “form” of tobacco; and (2) prepared in a manner as to be suitable for smoking. Therefore, they fall within the language of the catchall category of section 39-28.5-101(5).

In any event, as discussed above, Blunt Wraps are, in fact, consumed by smoking. Indeed, smokers presumably buy Blunt Wraps—in lieu of traditional, tobacco-free rolling papers—because they prefer to consume the additional tobacco contained in a Blunt Wrap.

So Blunt Wraps will be taxed as tobacco products.

Put That In Your Pipe And Smoke It

Several of the judges dissented finding ambiguity in the statute and following the principle that reviewing courts should construe taxation statutes narrowly in favor of the taxpayer.  The dissenters noted that in the district court an attempt had literally been made to smoke a Blunt Wrap in a pipe.  That is the first time I have ever conceived of that expression being taken literally.