- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Talking points to oppose S 622 and H 5876 in Rhode Island
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/HouseText13/H5876.pdf
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/SenateText13/S0622.pdf
RJ Reynolds is sponsoring S 622 and H 5878 to corner the e-cigarette market in RI, and to halt the rapid decline in Reynolds’ cigarette sales (not to protect children).
A news article has exposed this state level lobbying campaign by RJ Reynolds’ at
Big tobacco stubs out e-cigarette competitors | The Daily Caller
Reynolds reported a 5.6% US cigarette sales volume decline in 2012, compared to an overall 2.3% decline for the cigarette industry. S 622 & H 5876 would help prevent Reynolds from losing more cigarette sales and market share in RI, and would keep RI smokers from switching to smokefree e-cigarettes.
North Carolina based RJ Reynolds doesn’t even sell e-cigarettes in RI. So why are some RI lawmakers helping Reynolds try to corner the e-cigarette market at the expense of e-cigarette companies and consumers in RI?
Vapers and vendors support banning e-cigarette sales to minors (even though there is no evidence the products are marketed to youth), but that can be done with a one page bill.
After Obama’s FDA unlawfully banned e-cigarette imports in 2009, and after US Customs agents seized nearly 1,000 e-cigarette shipments at US ports, virtually all e-cigarette sales shifted to the Internet and mail order because very few tobacco retailers (or other brick-and-mortar retailers) would buy or sell the products. Now Reynolds wants to ban all existing e-cigarette sales in RI, and give the entire industry to Big tobacco.
Reynolds and other out-of-state Big tobacco companies already have behind-the-counter product display contracts with virtually all licensed tobacco retailers in OK (that control >80% of tobacco display shelves to ensure their products are easily visible to consumers), but <10% of e-cigarette companies and <5% of e-cigarette products have contracts with licensed tobacco retailers to display and sell.
The definitions of “tobacco derived product” and “vapor product” in S 622 & H 5876 contradict each other, as the definition of “tobacco derived product” says it doesn’t include a “vapor product”, while the “vapor product” definition says it MUST be a “tobacco derived product”.
The definition of “vapor product” in S 622 & H 5876 also exempts the majority of e-cigarette products now on the market. But determining which products are actually covered by the legislation’s definition of “vapor product” could result in years of conflict, controversy, and probably litigation.
Rhode Island legislation (S 622 & H 5876) would harm e-cigarette companies and consumers in RI, as well as smokers, because it would:
- protect and benefit RJ Reynolds and other out-of-state Big Tobacco companies at the expense of ALL e-cigarette vendors and consumers in Rhode Island;
- void ALL existing e-cigarette contracts and ban ALL existing sales in Rhode Island, and basically give the entire e-cigarette industry to Big Tobacco;
- require e-cigarette manufacturers, importers, dealers and distributors that market the products in RI to purchase state issued tobacco marketing licenses (and perhaps a different license for each process) even though many e-cigarette manufacturers and importers now directly market their products to RI consumers;
- would deny RI consumers from legally purchasing the vast majority of e-cigarette products now available on the market because they aren’t (and aren’t going to be) sold by licensed tobacco dealers in RI;
- significantly increase prices of e-cigarette products marketed in RI;
- benefit out-of-state e-cigarette companies (at the expense of those located in RI) that market directly to RI consumers via the Internet or mail order because the state cannot stop consumers from buying products over the Internet or mail order, and because the state probably doesn’t have the legal authority to prosecute out-of-state companies for violations due to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution;
- encourage e-cigarette manufacturers, importers and retailers in RI to move out-of-state, especially those who now market via the Internet and mail products to consumers; and
- threaten (instead of improve) consumer and public health in RI.
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/HouseText13/H5876.pdf
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/SenateText13/S0622.pdf
RJ Reynolds is sponsoring S 622 and H 5878 to corner the e-cigarette market in RI, and to halt the rapid decline in Reynolds’ cigarette sales (not to protect children).
A news article has exposed this state level lobbying campaign by RJ Reynolds’ at
Big tobacco stubs out e-cigarette competitors | The Daily Caller
Reynolds reported a 5.6% US cigarette sales volume decline in 2012, compared to an overall 2.3% decline for the cigarette industry. S 622 & H 5876 would help prevent Reynolds from losing more cigarette sales and market share in RI, and would keep RI smokers from switching to smokefree e-cigarettes.
North Carolina based RJ Reynolds doesn’t even sell e-cigarettes in RI. So why are some RI lawmakers helping Reynolds try to corner the e-cigarette market at the expense of e-cigarette companies and consumers in RI?
Vapers and vendors support banning e-cigarette sales to minors (even though there is no evidence the products are marketed to youth), but that can be done with a one page bill.
After Obama’s FDA unlawfully banned e-cigarette imports in 2009, and after US Customs agents seized nearly 1,000 e-cigarette shipments at US ports, virtually all e-cigarette sales shifted to the Internet and mail order because very few tobacco retailers (or other brick-and-mortar retailers) would buy or sell the products. Now Reynolds wants to ban all existing e-cigarette sales in RI, and give the entire industry to Big tobacco.
Reynolds and other out-of-state Big tobacco companies already have behind-the-counter product display contracts with virtually all licensed tobacco retailers in OK (that control >80% of tobacco display shelves to ensure their products are easily visible to consumers), but <10% of e-cigarette companies and <5% of e-cigarette products have contracts with licensed tobacco retailers to display and sell.
The definitions of “tobacco derived product” and “vapor product” in S 622 & H 5876 contradict each other, as the definition of “tobacco derived product” says it doesn’t include a “vapor product”, while the “vapor product” definition says it MUST be a “tobacco derived product”.
The definition of “vapor product” in S 622 & H 5876 also exempts the majority of e-cigarette products now on the market. But determining which products are actually covered by the legislation’s definition of “vapor product” could result in years of conflict, controversy, and probably litigation.
Rhode Island legislation (S 622 & H 5876) would harm e-cigarette companies and consumers in RI, as well as smokers, because it would:
- protect and benefit RJ Reynolds and other out-of-state Big Tobacco companies at the expense of ALL e-cigarette vendors and consumers in Rhode Island;
- void ALL existing e-cigarette contracts and ban ALL existing sales in Rhode Island, and basically give the entire e-cigarette industry to Big Tobacco;
- require e-cigarette manufacturers, importers, dealers and distributors that market the products in RI to purchase state issued tobacco marketing licenses (and perhaps a different license for each process) even though many e-cigarette manufacturers and importers now directly market their products to RI consumers;
- would deny RI consumers from legally purchasing the vast majority of e-cigarette products now available on the market because they aren’t (and aren’t going to be) sold by licensed tobacco dealers in RI;
- significantly increase prices of e-cigarette products marketed in RI;
- benefit out-of-state e-cigarette companies (at the expense of those located in RI) that market directly to RI consumers via the Internet or mail order because the state cannot stop consumers from buying products over the Internet or mail order, and because the state probably doesn’t have the legal authority to prosecute out-of-state companies for violations due to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution;
- encourage e-cigarette manufacturers, importers and retailers in RI to move out-of-state, especially those who now market via the Internet and mail products to consumers; and
- threaten (instead of improve) consumer and public health in RI.
