Another criticism relates to the alleged preference of large tobacco companies towards small independent tobacco producers and sellers. Proponents of this argument argue that certain price restrictions prevent smallholder farmers from competing with „Big Tobacco“. Over the past two years, twelve states have successfully fought this argument in court, and the long-term implementation of the MSA continues in the United States. [Citation required] As an incentive to join the transaction agreement, the agreement provides that when an MPS has entered into the transaction contract within ninety days of the date of execution of the transaction contract, that PMS is exempt from annual payment to the implementing states, unless the PMS increases its market share in the domestic cigarette market beyond its 1998 market share or beyond 125% of the market share of the 1997 MPS. If, in any given year, the market share of exempt MPS increases beyond these relevant historical limits, the MSA requires the exempt MPS to make annual payments to settlement states, similar to those of OPMs, but only on the basis of PMS sales, which represent the increase in the market share of the exempt MPS.  The general theory of these complaints was that cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry contributed to health problems in the population, resulting in considerable costs to state public health systems. Moore said: „The complaint is based on a simple term: they are at the root of the health crisis; You pay for it.`  States have asserted a wide range of fraudulent and fraudulent practices by tobacco companies during decades of sales.  Soon other states followed. The state`s complaints were aimed at recovering Medicaid and other public health expenses related to the treatment of smoke-related diseases. It is important that the defence of personal liability, so effective for the tobacco industry in actions brought by individuals, did not apply to the means invoked by states. The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) is an agreement between attorneys general in 46 states, 5 U.S. territories, the District of Columbia and the four largest U.S.
cigarette manufacturers on advertising, marketing, advertising, advertising, cigarette advertising and health care compensation related to tobacco-related diseases. To fill this gap, the National Association of Attorneys General („NAAG“) introduced the Allocable Share Release Repealer (ASR Repealer) in late 2002, a model status that eliminated the RSA. In a September 12, 2003 memo, Attorney General William H. Sorrell of Vermont, president of the NAAG Tobacco Project, stressed the urgency that „all states take steps to combat the proliferation of NPM sales, including the adoption of additional legislation and allied action laws and the consideration of other measures to serve the interests of states to avoid a reduction in tobacco benefits.“ He noted that „NPM sales across the country hurt all countries,“ that NPM sales in each state reduce payments to any other state, and that states have an interest in reducing NPM sales in each state.  In the Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which was implemented at the same time as the Master Settlement Agreement, the leading producer in the smokeless tobacco market (United States Tobacco Company, now known as the U.S.