The point is that there was no way for the cigarette companies to comply with the law, other than to change the banned descriptors to a new term. And no matter what term they chose, consumers would have figured out which brand was which. Moreover, the law did not specify or imply that the companies were prohibited from informing consumers which brand was which.

I understand the venom that these policy makers have for electronic cigarettes because they look like cigarettes; however, their desire to protect tobacco cigarettes from competition from these safer products is not enough to justify urging their state Attorneys General to trample on the Constitution and to violate well-established state contract law.

Think of it this way: Individual X has smoked 2 packs per day for 30 years. She has tried, unsuccessfully, to quit smoking using the nicotine patch and nicotine gum. Finally, she has successfully quit smoking using electronic cigarettes.

If you guessed F, then sadly, you are quite correct.

LAST：Wholesale e-cigarette 510 cartomizer 808d cartomizer dual coil cartomizer no leaking e-cigarette cartomizer |NEXT：Vaporizer Attachment 510 Ego Wax Glass Globe Vapor Atomizer