Here, they find a correlation between e-cigarette use and higher and more sustained levels of smoking. But because this is a cross-sectional study, they cannot determine which came first. In other words, what is the direction of the causal relationship? Does the e-cigarette use precede, and cause, the smoking? Or does the smoking precede, and cause, the e-cigarette use?

In law, there is a term used to refer to what Glantz and Chapman are doing here. It is called defamation.

Instead, in 2014, it is the electronic cigarette companies which are sending the anti-smoking messages and the health groups which are undermining those messages.

The rest of the story is that what these members of Congress are asking the Attorneys General to do is to trample on the Constitution. They are asking the Attorneys General to violate the established laws of their state by not only ignoring the clear language of the MSA, but by illegally enforcing a contract on parties that did not consent to that contract in the first place.

Even the e-cigarette industry itself supports this legislation. How ironic, then, that the state's physicians, along with other "anti-smoking" groups, are opposing this bill, which was enacted by the legislature and awaits the governor's signature. The "anti-smoking" and "health" groups are urging the governor to veto the bill.

To illustrate this, let's consider the five studies which the authors cite as providing evidence that electronic cigarettes inhibit smoking cessation.

LAST：vaporizer smoking atomizer e cig ce4 cartomizers |NEXT：vision ce5 v3 BDC ego bottom dual coil clearomizer