I, too, was disturbed by this ad and was going to write a blog post attacking it. However, it was quite apparent to me that this is not something that Lorillard would run. So before jumping to attack Lorillard, I did a little research and confirmed that it was not a Lorillard ad. In fact, it wasn't even really a blu company ad, since the company did not produce it (although they still had some association with the ad and did not disavow any relationship with it). My colleagues - Glantz and Chapman - were so excited about the opportunity to attack Lorillard for promoting e-cigarettes to youth that they failed to exercise even a minimum of due diligence in checking the facts first. (The complete story is ).

The rest of the story is that what these members of Congress are asking the Attorneys General to do is to trample on the Constitution. They are asking the Attorneys General to violate the established laws of their state by not only ignoring the clear language of the MSA, but by illegally enforcing a contract on parties that did not consent to that contract in the first place.

For several years, the Rest of the Story has been arguing against policies by which employers refuse to hire smokers. My main argument is that this is a form of employment discrimination and is therefore unwarranted. Further, I have suggested that refusing to hire smokers opens the door to discriminating against other groups, such as obese persons.

LAST：Stock stock stock ! 1300mah Rainbow aspire revolver battery vv ego twist battery from 3.2v to 4.8v |NEXT：2014 electronic cigarette manufacturer china MT3 for vaporizer