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.

According to an at Law360.com, the recently-released Surgeon General's report's conclusion that cigarette filters may actually increase the risk of lung cancer could lead to a new wave of class-action lawsuits against cigarette companies.

In an published in BU Today, I argue that the tobacco control movement has been co-opted by a bureaucracy of large national organizations that are more interested in putting feathers in their cap than actually saving lives from smoking.

LAST：Funny vaping mouthpiece Nero technology Yocan EXgo W2 wax pen kit all heating elements made in USA |NEXT：electronic cigarette wholesale