The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced the issuance of complaints for civil money penalties (CMPs) against 20 brick-and-mortar retailers and two online retailers for selling unauthorized e-cigarettes, including Elf Bar, a popular youth-appealing brand.
The regulatory agency previously issued warning letters to these retailers for selling unauthorized tobacco products. However, according to an FDA release, follow-up inspections revealed that the retailers had failed to correct the violations.
Accordingly, the agency is now seeking a CMP of approximately $20,000 from each retailer.
The approximately $20,000 CMP sought from each retailer is consistent with similar CMPs sought against retailers for the sale of unauthorized Elf Bar products over the last few months, including in Sept., Nov., Dec. and Feb.
The retailers can pay the penalty, enter into a settlement agreement, request an extension to respond, or request a hearing. Retailers that do not take action within 30 days after receiving a complaint risk a default order imposing the full penalty amount.
The board of directors for the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) voted unanimously on April 19 to maintain a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes and other vaping products, reports Brazil Reports.
Manufacturing, selling, importing and advertising vapes has been banned in the country since 2009, but e-cigarettes remain widely available in small shops and online stores across Brazil.
According the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, 16.8 percent of students aged 13 to 17 said they had tried vaping at least once in their lives. An estimate 4 million Brazilians vape, according to Covitel, which carries out health-related surveys.
Anvisa’s vote follows a public consultation on the measure. Anvisa justified its position based on the rise in underage vaping in countries that permit e-cigarettes, the addictive properties of nicotine and the lack of long-term studies on the effects of vaping on health, along with the potential impact of allowing vaping on Brazil’s overall tobacco control policies, which have been praised internationally.
In July 2019, Brazil became the second country to fully implement all measures set out by the World Health Organization with the aim of reducing tobacco consumption and protecting people from chronic non-communicable diseases.
The Brazilian Tobacco Industry Association, ABIFUMO, said that banning vapes is “ignoring the learnings of more than 80 countries that have already authorized their sale with clear rules for control, restriction of points of sale and taxation of manufacturers.”
Philip Morris Brasil said that “maintaining the ban on vapes is out of step with the uncontrolled growth of the illicit market, proven to be accessible to around 4 million Brazilians who use a product daily without any control of quality.”
Meanwhile, the Senate is debating a bill that would authorize the production, import, export and consumption of e-cigarettes in Brazil. The proposal is still in its early stages and does not have a date for voting.
The vaping industry has significantly changed in the 10 years since Vapor Voice started publishing.
By Timothy S. Donahue
The vaping industry has changed dramatically during the past decade. When Vapor Voice published its first issue in 2014, the e-cigarette industry was about six years old and still in its infancy. Cig-a-likes and tobacco flavors were still popular, but flavors and mods started taking off. In an online article on Dec. 14, 2019, Vapor Voice reported that Clearette was named “Best E-Cigarette and Vapor Line of 2014” in a competition organized by ECig Review Central.
ECig Review Central gathered 25 leading vapor enthusiasts from around the United States. The judges were blindfolded and sampled 20 prominent e-cigarette brands over six hours. “I liked the bold e-cigs the best,” said one judge. “The throat hit was perfect, and the draw was extremely smooth.”
Each tester was given a 15-minute to 20-minute break between individual e-cigarettes. Judges rated taste, quality and delivery on a scale of one to 10. In 2014, 21 out of 25 judges rated Clearette’s line as the best tasting. “The entire line was incredible,” stated another judge. “I was thinking it might be a tobacco company’s, but it wasn’t. The vapor tasted just like smoke.” Sadly, like many early vapor companies, Clearette and ECig Review Central are no longer in business.
These early devices provided little vapor, and battery life was short compared to today’s products. One early industry leader, Njoy, is still producing products, albeit now under the Altria umbrella. The difference between Njoy’s original Daily disposable and its current Daily disposable exemplifies the vapor industry’s technological growth. In addition, Njoy’s Ace pod system is the most technologically advanced vaping product to have received marketing authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Vapor Voice’s first print edition followed Altria’s announcement to launch its MarkTen e-cigarette nationwide. Altria also purchased Green Smoke for $110 million in cash and up to $20 million in incentive payments. Both the MarkTen and Green Smoke products are no longer on the market. Later that year, Greg Conley started the American Vaping Association, a nonprofit vapor industry advocacy organization that has now become part of the American Vapor Manufacturers Association, and the Oxford English Dictionary voted “vape” as the word of the year. Philip Morris International also launched its heated-tobacco product, IQOS, in Milan, Italy, and Nagoya, Japan.
In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration also released its proposed rule for extending its authority to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah and pipe tobacco (“the deeming rule”). The new regulations for electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products were finalized in 2016. The final deeming regulations were officially published on May 10, 2016, and became effective 90 days later on Aug. 8, 2016.
The deeming rule changed the vaping industry. Many would say it nearly decimated it. The FDA’s channels for manufacturers and retailers to gain permission to sell their products threatened to put them out of business. According to the Brooklyn Law Review in a 2017 paper, “Through the far-reaching ‘Deeming Rule,’ e-cigarette manufacturers are forced to comply with financially burdensome and time-consuming requirements before taking most of their products to market.”
The Juul Experience
Credit: Insurance Journal
In 2015, we had our first introduction to Juul Labs. During a tobacco industry event in New York, Brian Haynes, with Troutman Pepper, and myself were shown a Juul device by Gal Cohen, Juul Labs’ head of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs. We snuck off into the back corner of a bar together, and he let us both take a few puffs. He wouldn’t let us have one. It blew our minds. We knew then that it was potentially an industry-altering product.
Juul altered the industry too. Its impact could be summed up as “the good, the bad and the ugly.” The good was that Juul was a technological marvel at the time. The Juul device helped smokers switch to vaping faster than any product before it. Sales began to soar. Juul was the catalyst for the rapid growth of the vaping industry from 2016 to 2019.
In 2017, Kevin Burns joined Juul Labs as CEO about two years after the company launched Juul. Juul was estimated to make up about 40 percent of the e-cigarette industry at that time. Then, in December 2018, Altria Group invested $12.8 billion in Juul Labs, acquiring a 35 percent interest and valuing the company at $38 billion. Altria claimed Juul Labs would remain a fully independent company.
Soon after Altria’s investment, Juul Labs began to decline. The company and its advertising practices came under fire. The FDA accused Juul of creating a vaping “epidemic” by hooking youth on vapes, and Burns even went as far as to say he would apologize to parents whose “children were addicted to the company’s products” as concern grew around the teen vaping epidemic.
There was also the great EVALI scare. The outbreak of “e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury,” to use the outbreak’s official but misleading name, started in 2019 and was caused by illegal, unregulated cannabis vaping products laced with vitamin E acetate. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, wrongly blamed nicotine vaping products. This episode, too, almost ended the e-cigarette industry.
EVALI and the youth “epidemic” became too much of a burden for Juul Labs. Burns resigned as CEO of the company in September 2019. K.C. Crosthwaite, who was serving as the chief growth officer for Altria, was named his successor. In October 2019, Juul Labs announced it would be laying off about 500 employees by the end of the year. Several Juul Labs executives also moved on from the troubled company that year.
Stung by Juul’s disappointing performance, Altria announced in October 2019 that it was reducing the value of its investment in Juul by $4.5 billion. In January 2020, the FDA issued a policy prioritizing enforcement against unauthorized flavored e-cigarette products that appeal to kids, including fruit and mint flavors. However, the flavor restriction didn’t apply to disposable e-cigarettes. “Under this policy, companies that do not cease manufacture, distribution and sale of unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes (other than tobacco or menthol) within 30 days risk FDA enforcement actions,” the agency stated.
Juul subsequently pulled all its flavored pods from the U.S. market except for tobacco and menthol. The impact of the FDA’s rule was devastating for the pod-based Juul and all other pod-based vaping systems. By October 2020, Altria further reduced Juul’s valuation to approximately $10 billion. By March 2021, the valuation was cut to $4.3 billion; by March 2022, it was reduced to $1.6 billion. In July 2022, the valuation of Juul Labs was further cut down to $450 million, which was only 3.5 percent of its original value.
The fall of Juul may go on to be one of the most significant corporate collapses of this century. Coupled with the FDA’s nonenforcement policy of flavored disposable vaping products, Juul Labs’ downfall caused substantial changes in the vaping industry. No longer were pod systems a dominant force. Instead, sales of disposable vaping products exploded.
Disposables are King
Njoy ACE
The vapor industry has grown dramatically since Vapor Voice started publishing. In 2014, the vaping industry was worth an estimated $7.2 billion, according to Statista. In 2023, its value had grown to more than $23 billion. The global vaping industry is expected to reach more than $26 billion by 2028. The disposable e-cigarette market size was valued at $5.7 billion in 2021 and is poised to grow from $6.8 billion in 2022 to $14.8 billion by 2030, according to SkyQuest Technology.
While favored by consumers, disposable products present their own issues for the industry. It started with the rise of Puff Bar, which entered the U.S. market in 2019. At the time, it was owned by Cool Clouds Distribution of California. Cool Clouds sold Puff Bar to the brand’s Chinese manufacturer, DS Technology Licensing, in early 2020.
During the summer of 2020, the FDA instructed Puff Bar to stop selling its products. This decision was made because Puff Bar became a popular alternative to Juul after the latter discontinued some of its flavored products. Critics accused Puff Bar of targeting young people. In February 2021, Puff Bar resumed sales with a new design and synthetic nicotine, which, at the time, was not regulated by the FDA. Most disposable makers followed the same playbook. In 2020, U.S. lawmakers asked the FDA to force Puff Bar off the market.
Puff Bar sales began to decline; however, it wasn’t long before another disposable brand, Elf Bar, took over the market. Founded in 2007, iMiracle Shenzhen Technology was originally an e-commerce firm. In 2018, the company switched to disposable e-cigarettes and launched the Elf Bar brand with synthetic nicotine. In 2022, the FDA said it needed Congress to act to bring synthetic nicotine under its purview.
Congress closed the loophole last year. Under the new rules, companies were supposed to remove their flavored synthetic vapes from the market and file premarket tobacco product applications with the FDA. New products continued to be launched anyway. Puff Bar and Elf Bar began introducing products under different brand names, and thousands of other manufacturers followed suit.
This is where the industry stands today. Disposables dominate the market while pod systems continue to trail far behind. However, the FDA has tried to clamp down on the growth of illegal disposables. The agency has issued over 550 warning letters and more than 100 civil money penalty actions to retailers for selling unauthorized e-cigarettes.
Primarily, the regulatory agency’s actions have proved ineffective. Few retailers responded to the FDA’s actions. This has forced many states to step in. Due to the federal agency’s inability to control illegal flavored products, many state legislatures have introduced premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) registry bills. These bills require retailers only to sell products on a state list filled with products authorized by the FDA (of which there are only 23) and products with a PMTA under review by the regulatory agency. The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) has issued calls to action for several registry bills. Vaping companies are also being sued for selling flavored disposables without authorization.
Credit: Postmodern Studio
Altria and BAT subsidiary R.J. Reynolds (the maker of Vuse vaping products) have taken legal action to kill their vape competition. Last October, Altria subsidiary Njoy filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against dozens of manufacturers, distributors and retailers of disposable vapes, including the Breeze, Elf Bar, Esco Bar, Flum, Juice Box, Lava Plus, Loon, Lost Mary, Mr. Fog and Puff Bar brands. Njoy asked the court to bar imports by the companies and said it would “consider further litigation activity.”
In January, a U.S. District Court in California dismissed the lawsuit against many of the disposable vape manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The court found that the defendants did not participate in “the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences,” and therefore were improperly joined in the lawsuit. However, the case against iMiracle, the manufacturer of Elf Bar, has not been dismissed. The case is still pending.
The environmental impact of disposables is also a growing issue. Many companies are moving away from these products as more countries and U.S. states seek to ban them. Martin Miller, Chief Commercial Officer for Plxsur, a company that recently reached $1 billion in consolidated revenues, (see “Keeping Pace,” pg. 18) said safeguarding the environment and delivering safe and innovative products are core to the company’s sustainability agenda.
“We have worked closely with our partner companies to put in place commercial strategies to migrate consumers away from disposables. Our Italian business, Puff [no relation to Puff Bar], has already successfully migrated many of its consumers using disposables to pod and open devices,” he said. “These alternative products have already outperformed legacy single-use vapes by volume. Adding to this, migration away from disposables is present across our entire group, with Ireland-based Hale having already launched a new pod system and others with an ever-growing portfolio of owned and third-party pod systems.”
The e-cigarette industry is still growing rapidly. The Federal Trade Commission issued its third report on e-cigarette sales and advertising nationwide in April. The report found that combined sales of cartridge-based and disposable e-cigarette products to U.S. consumers by nine leading manufacturers increased by approximately $370 million between 2020 and 2021. The total topped $2.67 billion. E-cigarette companies spent $90.6 million more advertising and promoting their products in 2021 than in 2020.
Reported sales of cartridge products increased from $2.133 billion in 2020 to $2.496 billion in 2021; sales of disposable, non-refillable e-cigarette products increased from $261.9 million in 2020 to $267.1 million in 2021. As technology improves and new products come to market, vaping products will continue to save the lives of many combustible tobacco smokers. That’s one thing that isn’t going to change any time soon.
The CTP’s inability to apply its enforcement priorities often leaves state regulators and businesses baffled.
By Rich Hill
The recent onslaught of vapor registry bills in the United States is creating a lot of anxiety. Proposed registries have brought tension to public hearings and drama on social media. Unfortunately, like most current domestic issues, neither side appears to appreciate the perspective of the other. While only a handful of states have enacted product registries, many legislatures have considered and/or are considering such legislation. Understanding what these registries do, why they are promoted and their consequences is essential for all sides of this debate.
Rationale for Developing Vapor Product Registries
At present, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has granted marketing authorization for only a handful of tobacco-flavored vapor products and insists that all other vapor products are illegal. That said, the CTP has communicated its enforcement priorities related to deemed products numerous times. More specifically, the CTP has indicated its intention to prioritize enforcement efforts concerning certain deemed tobacco products (1) not covered by timely filed premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), (2) that have been the subject of marketing denial orders or those covered by PMTAs subject to negative determinations, including those rejected on procedural grounds (i.e., refuse-to-accept or refuse-to-file letters), and (3) that raise youth-use concerns.
Unfortunately, the CTP’s inability to apply these enforcement priorities consistently to the ever-changing and large number of unscrupulous manufacturers often leaves state regulators and businesses baffled about which products are at increased risk of enforcement action.
In short, this circumstance, with thousands of products remaining the subject of pending PMTAs that fall outside of the scope of the CTP’s enforcement priorities being sold alongside thousands of noncompliant flavored disposable vapor products, many of which fall within the scope of the FDA’s enforcement priorities, creates confusion in the marketplace and for state product regulators. Given the shortfalls in enforcement against vapor products that are not the subject of still-pending PMTAs, state tobacco regulators need a mechanism by which to determine which products should and should not be sold in their states—hence the value of vapor product registries.
Rich Hill
How Do Vapor Product Registry Bills Work?
Vapor product registry bills establish registries requiring companies to submit evidence demonstrating that products that have FDA marketing granted orders are the subject of pending PMTAs filed by specified dates related to PMTA deadlines or are the subject of administrative or judicial reviews. For example, registration in Louisiana requires manufacturers to attest to the marketing granted or still-pending PMTA status of each product and pay a registration fee. Then these products will be placed on a public-facing registry.
Positive Aspects of Product Registry Bills
Regardless of one’s position on registry bills, the legislation at least has the potential to create positive change. By way of example, registry bills can:
Provide objective criteria. Vapor product registries can theoretically provide objective criteria upon which wholesalers and retailers can rely in making purchasing decisions. While there will be fewer products available, these products may be purchased without the threat of state regulatory enforcement.
Supplement CTP enforcement resources. The CTP has limited enforcement resources. While flavored disposable vapor products have been a high enforcement priority for the center, these products still proliferate the retail space. Vapor registries could aid in making up for the CTP’s enforcement limitations.
Target youth-friendly products. The 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey reported that certain flavored disposable vapor products make up the majority of products used by youth. Registries may help in clearing the market of these products that lack pending PMTAs and are the most popular among youth.
Generate Revenue. Of course, registries also provide another revenue stream for state governments. With registration fees for each product, the amounts are not insignificant.
Consequences of Vapor Product Registries
All legislation and policy decisions invariably come with costs. Vapor product registries are no different. Some examples include:
Inhibit harm reduction efforts. Vapor products are harm reduction tools that benefit adult cigarette smokers seeking to quit or reduce their combustible cigarette use. Prohibiting access to such products prohibits access to the tools necessary to reduce combustible cigarette-related mortality and morbidity.
May not slow bad actors. Bad actors will continue to be bad actors. If a company violates the rules now, there is little reason to believe that a vapor product registry will prevent such actions.
Burden state resources. States are continuing to be required to do more without increased resources. In many instances, state tobacco regulatory enforcement agencies may simply lack the resources to effectively enforce registry requirements.
Innovation outpaces regulation. As the industry has observed before, evolution in the space moves more quickly than the regulatory arms can keep up. Innovative products falling outside of the scope of existing regulatory structures undoubtedly will winnow the effectiveness of product registries in the future. Indeed, most recently, innovations such as nicotine analog products are not covered by most registry bills.
Prohibitive scope can be too broad. In several instances, products not within the scope of the problem are swept into the “solution.” In a number of cases, modern oral nicotine products—products that sit at the lowest levels of the continuum of risk—are included in these product registry bills, which continues to undercut harm reduction efforts.
Final Thoughts
The problems that created the need for product registry legislation will continue. Until federal regulators embrace a harm reduction agenda and provide adult smokers, who will not or cannot quit, the products that have been demonstrated to assist their transition away from combustible cigarettes, the marketplace, whether legitimate or not, will respond by making them available. Vapor product registries, in and of themselves, will not solve the problems in isolation. The policies driving the need for such registries, ineffectual prohibitionist policies, need attention as well. Until the collective vapor product space, including manufacturers, retailers and consumers, aggressively advocates for policy change, new laws and regulations further limiting the ability to serve adult consumers are likely to evolve.
Richard Hill is senior director of E-Alternative Solutions.
The Minneapolis City Council in Minnesota is considering adding new rules and restrictions on sales of tobacco products, including a minimum price for cigarettes and other products that could be the highest in the nation.
The changes under consideration include a minimum price of $15 per pack of cigarettes or package of four or more cigars, or for certain-size packages of snuff or snus, according to media reports.
The changes to the city’s existing tobacco products ordinance also would bar price discounts or coupons for tobacco products, and — starting Dec. 1 — ban free samples of tobacco products, and ban smoking of “samples” inside any retail establishment licensed to sell tobacco products.
The changes would also increase the penalties for businesses that violate the ordinance — including moving from a $200 fine to a $500 fine for a first violation.
Several vape businesses, as well as the Kentucky Hemp Association and Kentucky Vaping Retailers Association, are suing the state government over House Bill 11, which will restrict vape sales starting in 2025.
Among other policy changes, HB 11 will bar businesses from selling vapes that are either not authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or are not currently under review by the regulatory agency.
During public debates, various arguments for and against HB 11 were made before the Legislature passed the law in late March.
But the vape shops’ lawsuit, filed last week in Franklin Circuit Court, challenges the legislation on constitutional grounds, according to media reports.
The lawsuit zeroes in on HB 11’s reliance on defining a “vapor product” in a way that includes devices that feature “vaporized nicotine or other substances.”
The shops’ petition says this definition encompasses not only nicotine vapes but also hemp-derived vaping products they currently sell. And it says the definition is broad enough to apply to medical cannabis vaping products that will become legal in Kentucky next year.
The lawsuit argues this makes the new law unconstitutional for two reasons.
First, it claims HB 11 violates a provision in the Kentucky Constitution that says the Legislature can’t pass a law that relates to more than one subject, and that subject must be specified in its title.
The plaintiffs say HB 11 is titled an “act relating to nicotine products” but actually affects non-nicotine products as well. They argue this effectively violates the constitutional rule.
Second, the lawsuit says hemp-derived vapes generally aren’t regulated by the FDA, which makes it impossible for businesses to comply with HB 11’s requirement that they only sell vapes that have received or are seeking FDA approval.
The suit argues this violates a due process clause in the U.S. Constitution and makes HB 11 an “arbitrary” law, which is prohibited by the Kentucky Constitution.
The Senate of the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth of the United States, has failed to adopt its committee report that recommends the passage of its version of a House of Representatives bill.
That bill aims to increase government revenue by amending the definition of cigarettes to ensure that all tobacco products are properly taxed.
Four senators voted “yes,” and four senators voted “no” to a motion to adopt the report of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs, but Senate president Edith E. DeLeon Guerrero announced that the report would not be adopted and would no longer exist, according to local media.
DeLeon Guerrero, Senate vice president Sen. Donald M. Manglona, Sens. Paul A. Manglona, and Celina R. Babauta voted for the committee report’s adoption.
House Bill No. 23-7 proposes to amend the definition of “cigarette” to include any product that resembles similarities to cigarettes based on its appearance, weight, usage, and packaging, such as “little cigars”, “filtered cigars”, or “roll-your-own.”
Tashkent TV Tower Aerial Shot During Sunset in Uzbekistan (Credit: Lukas)
The Ministry of Health in Uzbekistan has proposed a ban on the circulation of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products, e-liquids and heated tobacco products, Trend reports.
This is shown in the draft law published on Uzbekistan’s portal to discuss draft normative legal acts.
According to the law, the circulation of ENDS products on the “territory of the country is prohibited.”
The Ministry of Health also proposes to introduce administrative and criminal liability for violation of this ban—a fine in the amount of $1,000 to five years of imprisonment.
According to data from Uzbekistan’s Statistics Agency, the production volume of tobacco products in the country reached 2.1 billion pieces from January through February 2024.
From January through February 2024, the country’s exports of tobacco products reached $7.8 million, while imports amounted to $10.5 million during the same period.
Beginning on April 12, Cuban tobacco users experienced higher retail prices for cigarettes and cigars. The brands are the domestic tobacco products sold in local stores used by Cuban residents, not tourists.
According to the report, the prices of cigarette-style brands like Criollo, Titanes, and Popular are now CUP 30 ($1.25) per pack of 20. H. Upmann Clásico, a short cigar sold with and without filters, is CUP 50, and Popular Auténtico is now CUP 60. (It should be noted that an American dollar on Cuba’s black market averages about CUP 300 to $1; this would put the price of a 20-pack of Populars at about $0.10.)
Minister of Finance and Prices, Vladimir Regueiro, told Cuban media that the current cost does not cover all the costs and expenses related to the production and commercialization of the tobacco products.
In a press conference, he added that the measure would “contribute to reducing the fiscal deficit in the country, and new financial resources may be mobilized from the state budget to support the social expenses of priority sectors.”
He also said that tobacco is not a necessity for the population and that the responsibility of the State and the government is to guarantee an appropriate level and assortment of food products.
The Maine House of Representatives passed LD 2157, sponsored by Rep. Matt Moonen of Portland. The bill would prohibit tobacco sales within 300 feet of schools, in an effort to prevent tobacco and nicotine addiction among children.
“At 300 feet, this would affect one existing business,” Moonen said on the House floor Tuesday night. “That business is in my district, this business sells tobacco within 26 feet of my school, and I would like that to stop.”
That business is Fresh Approach, located in Portland’s West End. It’s right across the street from the Reiche Elementary School, according to media reports.
“I’ve been here for 30 years, and in 30 years, I’ve yet to have a fourth grader come in here and try to buy a pack of cigarettes,” Chet Knights, owner of Fresh Approach, said. “It’s just kind of silly.”
He says Fresh Approach is primarily a neighborhood grocery store, but some people come in to grab a sandwich and a pack of cigarettes. If he is prohibited from selling tobacco, those customers will go elsewhere.
“When the construction guys come along, and they want to get a sandwich, a soda, and a pack of Marlboros, and they can’t get a pack of Marlboros, you’re gonna go down the street to the store with the big fancy signs,” Knights said, explaining that he does not advertise for tobacco products at his store. “For me, that business is just gone.”
On Friday, the Maine state Senate amended that bill, so stores could not obtain a tobacco license within 300 feet of schools, but they could renew a tobacco license if they already had one. This essentially grandfathers Fresh Approach in and allows them to continue to sell tobacco products.
