Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
A lawsuit challenging claims by tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds that its Eclipse cigarette is healthier to smoke than the average cigarette can go forward, a Vermont judge has ruled.
Chittenden Superior Court Judge Dennis Pearson, in an 18-page ruling, denied R.J. Reynolds' request to dismiss outright the case filed by the Vermont Attorney General's Office on behalf of Vermont and 35 other states.
"The state is generally entitled to present its case on the evidence ... with regard to the existence (or not) of reasonable substantiation supporting R.J Reynolds's health claims regarding Eclipse," Pearson wrote in his Aug. 19 decision.
Pearson also rejected all but one of nine other pre-trial motions filed by R.J. Reynolds regarding what evidence and witnesses could be used at the trial, scheduled to begin Oct. 5.
Jump to full article »
This case is novel because no one has ever said how much scientific evidence is needed to prove a reduced risk to human health.VT assistant attorney general Julie Brill, on the state's challenge to RJR's Eclipse ad claims.
The fight this time: whether R.J. Reynolds Co. can back up marketing claims about its Eclipse cigarette, which it says is safer than the average smoke and "may produce less risk of cancer."
The case, unfolding at Chittenden Superior Court in Burlington, pits the Vermont Attorney General's Office against the tobacco giant. The Vermont litigation is being watched and supported by 36 states.
No financial damages are being sought. Instead, Vermont is alleging the claims about Eclipse are not supported by scientific evidence and is asking for an injunction to put a stop to the advertising campaign.
According to R.J Reynolds, the Eclipse advertising claims are true and Vermont is out of line for trying to use its consumer fraud act to take on a battle that ought to be addressed under the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. Eclipse is the next best choice.RJR's Eclipse claims are under attack by VT's AG.
In an age where almost anything can be purchased with a click of the mouse, there's one thing that, by law, will no longer be available for online purchase beginning today -- tobacco.
On the same day the tobacco tax increases 20 cents per pack of cigarettes in Vermont, up to $1.99 per pack, state law has also outlawed the sale of tobacco products over the Internet and other delivery sales as part of Vermont's Act 119.
The law is expected to increase state tax revenue, decrease the number of smokers under the age of 18, increase revenue for Vermont retailers and discourage sales from online vendors that illegally fail to collect and pay state, federal or sales taxes, said Assistant Attorney General Christy Mihaly.
A new law that will ban the sale of tobacco products over the Internet or phone is "win-win-win," Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell said Monday.
Sorrell said children will be protected, tax revenue will be earned and state retailers will be supported when the legislation takes affect Tuesday.
The law makes non-face-to-face sales of tobacco products illegal. Sorrell said the measure was prompted by Internet vendors that have inadequate or no systems for verifying the age of a buyer, and that also do not pay cigarette and tobacco taxes.
Vermont's new ban on the sale of Internet sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products goes into effect today.
It will now be illegal for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, little cigars or snuff to be ordered or purchased by telephone, mail order or through the Internet and shipped to anyone in Vermont
Smokers in Vermont and New Hampshire are bracing for another hit to the pocketbook this year as both states plan on raising taxes on tobacco.
But as the tax rates per pack go even higher -- and the number of smokers gradually declines -- tobacco may eventually burn out as a reliable revenue source for cash-strapped states.
In Vermont, the tobacco tax rate is slated to rise by 20 cents to $1.99 per pack on July 1, the second-part of a two-step increase in the tobacco tax to help pay for the Catamount Health program. State taxes went up 60 cents per pack in 2006 in Vermont when the Catamount Health program was first passed into law.
And Vermont also applies its 6 percent sales tax to tobacco, while New Hampshire has no sales tax.
Cigarette taxes are on the rise in Vermont and may be in New Hampshire, too, though the Granite State will remain a relative bargain compared to states around it.
Vermont's cigarette tax rate climbs by 20 cents to $1.99 per pack effective Tuesday, a jump that follows a 60-cents-per-pack increase in 2006. Both increases were pegged to pay for the state's new Catamount Health insurance program for the until-now uninsured.
New Hampshire's cigarette tax, now $1.08 per pack, is slated to jump to $1.33 in October if it doesn't generate at least $48 million in revenues between July and October.
When the General Assembly passed a bill to increase the tax on tobacco products in the 2006 session, they instituted a two-step increase -- 60 cents then and 20 cents now.
On July 1, the excise tax on a pack of cigarettes in the state will increase from $1.79 a pack to $1.99.
The effect the increase will have on the number of Vermont smokers will take years to determine, as research on the effect of the 2006 60-cent increase is still under way. Anti-smoking organizations say increases in tobacco taxes will deter young smokers from picking up the habit and induce longtime smokers to quit.
Rutland City fire officials said cigarette butts tossed into a trash can Monday morning apparently were still smoldering and ignited a fire later in the afternoon that gutted a River Street home.
Fire crews were called to the home of Jeffrey Demania at 98 River St. at 1:34 p.m. where they found smoke trickling from the white, two-story house.
Fire crews were called to the home of Jeffrey Demania at 98 River St. at 1:34 p.m. where they found smoke trickling from the white, two-story house. No one was home at the time of the fire and no firefighters were injured battling the blaze.
Demania and his 6-year-old daughter who lived in the residence lost most of their belongings. . . .
"(The resident) smoked a few cigarettes this morning before he left and disposed of them in a plastic waste can on the left side of the stove," Robillard said. "There had to be some other combustible materials in that waste can and the waste can itself was plastic, that's a fuel, and that's where it started."
The state's smoking-cessation efforts are being consolidated into the Vermont Quit Network, which plans a statewide mailing to Vermonters this week in hopes of reaching the 18 percent of adults who smoke.
The free services include a toll-free Vermont Quit Line -- 1-800-QUIT-NOW, hospital-based smoking cessation programs for individuals or groups and online and self-help resources.
An estimated 87,000 Vermont adults smoke, and about half try to quit each year, the Health Department said Wednesday.
Research, including that of the surgeon general of the United States, the President's Cancer Panel, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Cancer Institute, has demonstrated that comprehensive state tobacco use prevention and treatment programs, sustained over time, can achieve substantial reductions in tobacco use.
We know what works. Now is not the time to reduce funding for Vermont's tobacco use prevention and treatment program. Now is the time to appropriate an additional $5.2 million, for a total of $10.4 million (just 25 percent of our payments from the tobacco companies) to fight the leading killer and disease agent in Vermont. Vermonters deserve nothing less.
Vermont banned smoking in restaurants many years ago, and in bars in 2004. I have heard many arguments both for and against smoking in public places, many of which focus around personal rights. I fully back Gov. Tim Kaine in his proposed smoking ban.
Coming from a state that already has similar bans, I want to say that people do get used to it and are able to smoke outside the bars and restaurants.