• I lied to you when I told you that in the Choi and Forster study, "e-cigarettes were a pathway to renewed or new nicotine addiction."

Long-time tobacco opponent Professor Simon Chapman, from Sydney University, said describing e-cigarettes as medicine was "Orwellian" and destructive to society.

The basic framework that the FDA has proposed to regulate e-cigarettes is that every product on the market (except a very few that were already on the market as of February 2007) must submit a new product application. These applications must demonstrate to the FDA that the introduction of the product to the market is appropriate for the public's health.

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.

Some of the most important conclusions in epidemiologic research have come not from large case-control or cohort studies or clinical trials, but from case studies or case series, or as Dr. Frieden would say, "anecdotes."

Moreover, these politicians - while callling for a ban on flavorings in fake cigarettes - are not calling for a similar ban on all flavorings in real cigarettes. They are not calling for a ban on the use of menthol cigarettes to addict kids. They are not calling on legislation to amend the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to remove the menthol exemption. They are not calling upon the FDA to ban menthol.

LAST：China products innovative idea ecig zna 30 mod clone |NEXT：Best seller electronic cigarette epipe e cigarette k1000