Among the provisions I suspect Altria supports are:
- ban the sale of single cigars, except in tobacco shops;
- set weight-based requirements for the number of cigars per package;
- require all tobacco products be sold from behind the counter.

While health groups have long advocated the latter provision, and while former Baltimore Health Commissioner Josh Sharfstein (who is also former Waxman staffer and now Deputy Commission at FDA who misreprestented health hazardous of electronic cigarettes) first proposed a single cigar sales ban, it appears that these provisions also benefit Altria at the expense of other cigar manufacturers.

Regarding comment by OTP Kid, Altria encouraged PA legislative leaders (if they were going to tax smokeless) to support Rendell’s more modest weight based tax for smokeless instead of taxing it as a percentage of wholesale price that CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA were advocating.

Taxing smokeless by weight imposes the same tax on Altria’s premium priced Skoal and Copenhagen brands as discount moist snuff brands (e.g. Reynolds Conwood Grizzly) and at a slightly lower rate than heavier and declining chewing tobacco (which Swedish Match has leading market share), I support weight based tax on smokeless because it is a fairer tax (than a price based tax) for all snuff products, for lower risk snus and new lower weight dissolvable tobacco products.

I also support a piece based tax on cigars because it isn’t fair to tax a $10 cigar at 25 times the rate of a $.40 cigar. The primary impact of taxing cigars by price is to encourages premium cigar smokers to switch to cheaper cigars. Also, several of the worlds largest premium cigar internet retailers are based in PA, and threatened to move to Florida if cigars were taxed. While it is doubtful that they would have relocated if Rendell’s $.036/cigar tax was enacted, they would almost certainly relocate if a 59% (or even 30%) of wholesale price tax was enacted.