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.

Senator David Leyonhjelm is acting like an errand boy in Parliament for "big tobacco", writes Simon Chapman in The Drum.

If the American Lung Association were sincere in its alleged belief that no nicotine-containing products should have flavors that attract kids, then the first and most important action it would take is to demand an immediate ban on the use of menthol flavoring in cigarettes. Short of that, all of this claptrap about eliminating flavors that attract kids and requiring companies to alter their products to help reduce tobacco's lethal toll is a bunch of crap.

LAST：China wholesale Hot selling in USA high quality huge vapor cartomizer e-pipe |NEXT：2014 h2 tank, h2 replaceable coil H2 clearomizer, h2 atomizer enough stock