Sure, but only if the revenue is used to directly benefit those who are bearing its burden. Raise the cigarette tax and use the money to fund anti-smoking programs and services, research, and treatment for smokers, especially in poorer communities and communities of color, and the policy is no longer regressive but progressive. It could reduce, rather than exacerbate existing income and health inequities.

Harris et al., in perhaps the most comprehensive and definitive on this issue, found a clear increase in cancer risk associated with non-filtered cigarettes. As they reported: "Compared with smokers of medium tar (15-21 mg) filter cigarettes, risk was higher among men and women who smoked high tar (> or = 22 mg) non-filter kangers (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.73, and 1.64, 1.26 to 2.15, respectively)."

"According tothe, e-cigarette use in England has been rising since2011, when the survey began. Meanwhile, the percentage of smokerswho reported quitting in the previous year rose from 4.6 percent in2011 to 6.2 percent in 2012. The cessation rate was 6.1 percentlast year and 8.7 percent in the first quarter of this year. Duringthe same period the success rate of smokers who tried to quit rosefrom 13.7 percent to 21.4 percent. Those numbers suggest the real promise of e-cigarettes—not as anefarious plot to hook teenagers on nicotine but as a harm-reducingalternative to smoking. If the FDA follows Durbin's advice, it willban most e-cigarette flavors, making the switch less appealing tosmokers who prefer the prohibited varieties, and restricte-cigarette advertising, making smokers less aware of a competingproduct that could literally save their lives."

LAST：kanger aerotank mow |NEXT：kanger protank ii