The problem with what Dr. Glantz has done is that he is already disseminating the "answer" to this important research question without having actually done the research. That obviates the need to do the research because it is too late. The answer has already been disseminated, and it is going to affect important public policy as well as clinical decisions.

Currently under consideration in several states, is legislation that would tax electronic cigarettes as traditional tobacco cigarettes, which would be much costlier for consumers. For example, North Carolina currently taxes consumers 45 cents per pack, or 12.8% of the cost of traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products like snuff, cigars and chewing tobacco. David Powers, VP of Government Relations for R.J. Reynolds a large backer of the proposed legislation state’s “many smokers are switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, adding “vapor devices carry less health risk because no tobacco smoke is produced.” “We don’t want to create disincentives for smokers to try it.”

This is quite a twist, since usually Congress oversees the enforcement of laws. Here, Representatives Waxman, Harkin, and Welch are requesting that their state Attorneys General violate the law by illegally enforcing an invalid contract.

The major purpose of regulating advertising in the first place is to prohibit companies from deceiving consumers. But by precluding companies from telling consumers the truth, the CAP's regulations actually ensure that consumers are deceived. There is no legal nor public health justification for this campaign of deception. It protects cigarette profits at the expense of the lives and health of UK citizens.

The Rest of the Story regrets to inform readers that a mistake was made in the above report. While the bulk of the report is true and accurate, there were a few minor, technical errors made:

LAST：kanger protank 2 capacity |NEXT：protank glass replacement