The answer:

Ironically, Dr. Glantz (and numerous anti-smoking groups) are supporting the protective legislation. Which raises the question: Who is acting more as a Big Tobacco front group? The e-cigarette associations, which are fighting protective legislation for tobacco cigarettes, or Glantz and the anti-smoking groups, which are trying to get protective legislation ensconced in every state throughout the country, so that cigarette profits are protected nationwide?

A number of anti-smoking groups are attacking two former tobacco industry consultants for failing to disclose their history of funding by the tobacco industry in a set of two commentaries they published recently in a pair of major medical journals. The journals have both responded by admonishing the authors and requiring them to publish a correction in the next issues of the journals.

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.

LAST：ecigator ecig 2014 New mechanical 18500 copper akuma mod |NEXT：Changeable coil pro tank E cig pro tank cartomizer