In other words, it is time to acknowledge that the law was flawed. It is not the cigarette companies that are to blame for the fact that consumers still understand which brand is which. The law is to blame. If the intent of Congress were to ban any brand that might mislead consumers, then the Congress should simply have banned these brands, requiring them to be pulled from the market.

"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"."

"The standard of consent for terms of service is low. But that “consent” is a legal fiction, designed to facilitate online interactions. (See and ’s books for more.) It’s very different from informed consent, the ethical and legal standard for human subjects research (HSR). The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, a/k/a the , requires that informed consent include:

Clive further shows how the misguided headlines created by Glantz have already led to public policy makers being misled by this misrepresentation of the science.

Rechargeable

LAST：New large vapor 2200mah battery electronic cigarette starter kit ecig zmax Sigelei latest e cig |NEXT：2014 new product watchcig ecigator ecig china supplier