In 2011, a federal court in the USA gave the Food and Drug Administration the permission to regulate e-cigarettes under the same laws as tobacco consumption. This was due to the fact that these devices provide nicotine just like the real thing. In the UK, the government has taken a different stance and according to the NHS, they are to be considered a medical aid to help smokers kick the habit. This will be brought into play in 2016 and until that date it is thought that e-cigarettes will remain in that grey area that allows their sales to be largely unregulated.

What it means is that the ERS would rather that a smoker who cannot quit using other means continue smoking than switch to electronic cigarettes. The ERS clearly states that it opposes the use of electronic cigarettes, period. Thus, it implies that it opposes the use of electronic cigarettes by a smoker who is unable to quit via any other smoking cessation method. For such an individual, the ERS statement implies that it would actually prefer the smoker to continue smoking than to quit via the use of electronic cigarettes.

The proposed policies in New York State and Israel would severely harm the public's health by causing many vapers to go back to cigarette smoking. What justification is there for a law that we know would harm the public's health?

LAST：Factroy price! Accept paypal clearomizer 2.5ml vivinova |NEXT：The first dual coil Four wicks clearomizer innokin iclear 16