The Rest of the Story

In the paper, the authors ackowledge that:

The study authors attack the cigarette companies for substituting another term in the brand name for their products after removing the offending terms ("lights," "ultra-lights," "mild," etc.). But what they fail to acknowledge is that in order to comply with the law, the cigarette companies had no other choice. Had they simply removed the offending descriptor, this would have resulted in their having four or five brands with the exact same name, preventing consumers from having any way to distinguish these brands. Such a result would have effectively removed these brands from the market, which was clearly not the intent of Congress. Had Congress intended to remove these brands from the market, it would have simply banned these brands altogether.

LAST：2014 newest Mini Protank 1100mAh 2.0ml Rebuildable Clearomizer ecigator ecig |NEXT：2014 JSB Patent K2 new and popular ecigator ecig with smart PCC pack