In order to introduce a new electronic cigarette product to the market, the manufacturer will have to demonstrate that the product is beneficial to the public's health. This does not simply mean that one must demonstrate that the product is safer than cigarettes. The applicant also needs to show that the introduction of the product into the market will not deter smokers from quitting or encourage youth to start using the product. At the present time, there is a substantial body of opinion among tobacco control experts that electronic cigarettes do not reduce population risk. Therefore, how can we expect that a manufacturer could demonstrate, at the level of proof required, something which most tobacco control experts do not even agree with?

In his on the Hit & Run blog, Jacob Sullum nicely points out the way in which Dr. Frieden is completely ignoring the multitude of data showing that literally thousands of ex-smokers were able to quit smoking using electronic cigarettes. He continues to call these people nothing but "anecdotes." Sullum also points out that Dr. Frieden is " from whole cloth in an effort to portray theproduct as a grave threat to public health and a menace to 'ourchildren.'"

So the key argument against electronic cigarettes is that for every person who they help by getting them off of cigarettes, there is another person who they prevent from getting off cigarettes.

Today, I show that ironically, it is Dr. Glantz who is working to protect Big Tobacco profits, while the electronic cigarette groups are working to make cigarettes obsolete.

LAST：kanger evod coils |NEXT：kanger aerotank coil