A good article on the rationale of the tobacco law that was just enacted yesterday.

So being an industry that has been around for centuries, the tobacco companies have learned to "go with the flow" to better serve themselves. This is apparent by the fact that the tobacco companies are behind this bill. Why would that be? Well for one, it will probably save them money in the long run. With tobacco products being sold as "more healthy" class action lawsuits will have less merit. Which makes the scenario of "tobacco companies packing up because of extended costs of the bill". Little did I know at the time of writing that the tobacco companies were all for this change.

You can see the thought bubbles in the eyes of the tobacco companies with the authors statement of:

"Tobacco companies wanted a rule that would let them market anything nominally safer than a conventional cigarette."

If it isn't clear what their new marketing strategy is, then remove the wool.

The author also agrees, and shows the FDA agrees, of the obvious prediction of users switching to illegal cigarettes in the case of the ban (and in my opinion the regulation) of cigarettes.

If you ban tobacco products, some people will quit, but others will just buy them illegally. And the illegal products will come with none of harm reduction that regulation can provide. The FDA acknowledged this problem years ago. If tobacco were outlawed, the agency explained, black-market suppliers would move in with products "even more dangerous than those currently marketed, in that they could contain even higher levels of tar, nicotine, and toxic additives."

All and all the author is for the ban, calling it "rational". But comparing it to the war on drugs, anything is rational.