You see, no matter what term a tobacco company uses to rename its product, it is going to be known that the name is the new name for whatever the product's old name was. No matter how bland and non-descriptive the new name is, it is still going to infer the same attributes as the old name.

But when it really came down to it, these groups weren't willing to actually put any meat in the legislation. That's why they merely banned the descriptors, rather than banning the products. That's why they banned the flavorings that are never used, rather than the menthol which is used by millions. That's why they gave the FDA authority to lower the nicotine in cigarettes, but not remove it. That's why they gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco sales to minors, but not to increase the legal age of purchase or outlaw the sale of tobacco in any particular type of retail establishment. And that's why they are pushing the FDA to outlaw electronic cigarettes and dissolvable tobacco products, but not touch the real ones.

"They still have nicotine in them."

Here is what each of the three companies/associations had to say regarding this issue in their submitted comments:

In my blog , I argued that the cigarette companies cannot possibly be found in violation of the law for using alternative names for their products when the law specifically allowed those products to remain on the market.

LAST：2013 most popular high quality e cigarette atomizer CE4 ,CE5 ,CE6 ,protank ego-t ce4 v2 |NEXT：E- cigarette wholesale, new version 1453 Clearomizer , 1453 clearomizer single kit, double kit