"Smoking no worse on the lungs than feeling a little sad."

Clearly, the FDA does not believe that there is sufficient evidence at the present time to conclude that cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than vaping.

The study authors attack the cigarette companies for substituting another term in the brand name for their products after removing the offending terms ("lights," "ultra-lights," "mild," etc.). But what they fail to acknowledge is that in order to comply with the law, the cigarette companies had no other choice. Had they simply removed the offending descriptor, this would have resulted in their having four or five brands with the exact same name, preventing consumers from having any way to distinguish these brands. Such a result would have effectively removed these brands from the market, which was clearly not the intent of Congress. Had Congress intended to remove these brands from the market, it would have simply banned these brands altogether.

This assertion is very misleading, if not outright false. All of these groups readily acknowledge that they are trade associations whose members are electronic cigarette manufacturers or retailers. Moreover, none of these groups, to the best of my knowledge, is funded by Big Tobacco. They are independent trade associations that were organized by and are run by electronic cigarette companies or retailers, not by tobacco companies.

LAST：aspire e cig website|NEXT：aspire e cig tank