Ironically, Stan Glantz criticized the study specifically because it examined the effect of electronic cigarettes on quitting among smokers who desired to quit. According to an in the New York Times: "Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study’s limitation was that it tried to measure the effect of e-cigarette use only among smokers who were trying hard to quit, not all smokers."

The rest of the story is that these tobacco researchers are apparently lying to the public about the legitimate conclusions of their own study in order to mislead the media and the public about the role of e-cigarettes in youth smoking. This is scientific dishonesty. And regardless of one's position on electronic cigarettes, behavior like this should play no role in the scientific debate over the appropriate role for these products.

In other words, it is time to acknowledge that the law was flawed. It is not the cigarette companies that are to blame for the fact that consumers still understand which brand is which. The law is to blame. If the intent of Congress were to ban any brand that might mislead consumers, then the Congress should simply have banned these brands, requiring them to be pulled from the market.

According to a from the American College of Chest Physicians: "Experts from the world’s leading lung organizations have released a on electronic cigarettes, focusing on their potential adverse effects on human health and calling on governments to ban or restrict their use until their health impacts are better known."

The scientific literature supporting the conclusion that filtered cigarettes are associated with a lower cancer risk than non-filtered cigarettes is substantial. I will not present the entire literature, but here are some representative studies:

LAST：Charming stuff e cig dry herb vaporizer dct replacement cartomizer |NEXT：2014 New Arrival mechanical Mod high quality e cig hades clone mod