Not only does this column provide bad medical advice, but the advice itself is based on misinformation. For example, the article claims that e-cigarettes have been shown to be a gateway to smoking: "Most dangerous of all is the appeal to children. Vapor is less irritating than smoke, and comes in flavors such as bubble gum, cola and chocolate. Some children who would not try regular cigarettes will be tempted by e-cigarettes. As soon as they start, they will become addicted to nicotine and suffer from the health effects and expense of that addiction. Others who start with e-cigarettes will go on to use real cigarettes, and face the deadly diseases they cause."

The main difference between this study and those touted by Glantz as showing that e-cigarettes are ineffective is that unlike Glantz's cited studies, this one actually examines cessation rates among smokers who reported using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. In other words, Brown et al. included smokers who reported having used e-cigarettes with the intention to quit smoking. In the studies cited by Glantz, smoking cessation rates for all e-cigarette users were examined, even if a smoker just tried a puff of an electronic cigarette to see what all the hype is about.

Should it be funded by smokers?

Is this the message we want going out to smokers? That their smoking is perhaps no more dangerous to them than if they quit smoking and instead used a product that only delivers nicotine without the tens of thousands of other chemicals, including more than 60 known human carcinogens?

Yes.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans, along with corporations that are enjoying inappropriate tax breaks.

LAST：2014 wholesale ecigator ecig ego ce4 with cheap price |NEXT：2014 alibaba express suppliers oniyo vapetank 1.0 e cigarette cloutank clearomizer