The SAMHSA article is full of ridiculous statements and poor reasoning, such as the conclusion that electronic cigarettes are repeating the Big Tobacco story because their ads use celebrities:

B. Announced a gradual reduction in nicotine levels in cigarettes to non-addictive levels.

Why does the Surgeon General's report not review the literature on the cancer risks of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes, even though it seems to draw a conclusion about this issue? The only answer I can think of is that the report aimed to draw a particular conclusion, rather than to present the facts in an objective way. Apparently, the report was pre-determined to conclude that all design changes to cigarettes increased their cancer risk. It conflated the filter with other sources of tar yield reductions and at the same time, failed to review studies that examined the relative risk of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes.

1. "Indoor concentrations of CO and CO2 showed no difference between control and vaping periods."

The very idea that one would extrapolate from a study finding that vaping, like smoking, reduces exhaled nitric oxide levels to the conclusion that smoking may be no more hazardous than vaping in terms of its acute pulmonary effects defies scientific logic. It also shows a misunderstanding, or at least a misinterpretation of the meaning of exhaled nitric oxide findings.

LAST：High quality and factory price wax vaporizer pen e cig thor |NEXT：808 dry herb vaporizer USA hot sale iPhenix glass globe dry herb atomizer