After the resolution (RDC 14/2012) was issued
Discursive strategy	Domain	Argument
Unanticipated costs to economy and society	The economy	Loss of jobs (specially farmers) and sales, impossibility to grow burley tobacco.
		Loss of tax revenue due to increase in illicit trade.
	Law enforcement	Rise of illicit trade as adults who smoke flavoured cigarettes will purchase them in illicit market, thus increasing contraband.
	The law	ANVISA has no mandate to ban additives in tobacco products
	Politics/governance	The resolution is a typical example of the nanny state, the government is over reaching in its regulatory mandate.
Intended public health benefits	There is not enough evidence	There is no scientific evidence about the relation between additives use and attractiveness of tobacco products.
	Policy will not work	The additive ban will be ineffective to avoid kids start to smoke.
Unintended benefits to undeserving groups	Smugglers will profit	The additive ban will rise illicit trade.
Expected tobacco industry costs	Additives ban will reduce sales and jobs	The additive ban will increase illicit trade and not allow grow burley tobacco generating poverty and loss of jobs.