Thus, if it had been the intent of Congress to eliminate this problem, Congress would have chosen to simply mandate the removal of these "light" products from the market. But Congress did not do that.

This is what we call science in tobacco control today?

Earlier this week, I that the 2014 Surgeon General's fails to disclose the conflicts of interest of its authors, many of whom have received money from pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the very products about which the report opines. I also how this is particularly problematic, since the report itself complains about how historically, tobacco-funded scientists failed to disclose their conflicts of interest. I concluded that the 2014 Surgeon General's report is violating the very ethical principles that it attacks the tobacco company for violating in the past, and I note that while there has been substantial progress in the past 50 years in the area of disclosure of conflicts of interest, somehow that progress has evaded the producers of the Surgeon General's report itself.

"The findings demonstrated that manufacturers did not simply remove descriptors, to be in compliance with the law, but introduced new color-coded brand name descriptors which smokers were able to recognize and easily identify the formerly labeled "lights" brands. We did not examine the use of colors themselves, which may be protected by the First Amendment, but rather the use of color terms. The marketing materials examined make explicit the fact that the use of substituted color terms in brand names is similar to the dropped "descriptors, so that consumers will continue to recognize these brands as "lights"."

LAST：New maraxus e cig maraxus v2 with factory price maraxus mod wholesale |NEXT：Best Ego e cig wholesale china evod e-cigarette cartomizer