1. The financial conflicts of interest involved in these commentaries were not with tobacco companies, but with pharmaceutical companies. Every instance where "tobacco company" appears should be replaced with "pharmaceutical company," and "Big Tobacco" should be replaced with "Big Pharma." The article errantly refers to R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson, Star Scientific, U.S. Tobacco, Liggett, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company. These companies should have been listed as Elan Pharmaceutical, SmithKline Beecham, Glaxo Wellcome, GlaxoSmithKline, Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Sanofi-Synthelabo, sanofi-aventis, Lederle, Ciba-Geigy, McNeil Consumer Products, and Pharmacia. We apologize for any inconvenience these errors may have caused.

I doubt that the smoke levels in New Jersey parks were anything like the levels that are being experienced by the tens of thousands of the state's casino workers.

The restriction is inappropriate because it prohibits companies from simply telling consumers the truth about the relative safety of their products. Arguably, this is the single most important piece of information that every consumer needs to know. Keeping consumers in the dark about the relative safety of electronic cigarettes vs. tobacco cigarettes does not serve any public health interest. In fact, it does just the opposite.

The Rest of the Story

LAST：kanger t2 |NEXT：kangertech protank 3 dual coil replacement heads