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.

Since Dr. Foulds' addiction scale correlates significantly with actual quitting behavior, one would expect that these results would eventually translate into higher rates of complete nicotine cessation in smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes.

The ironic thing is that no one actually disagreed with me on the science. Most of the advocates of smokeless tobacco acknowledged that there is a small, but real, causal relationship between traditional smokeless tobacco use and oral cancer (this relationship does not appear to hold for snus). However, simply because I made the statement that this causal link exists, I was blasted. Apparently, the simple statement that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer is too much for many harm reduction advocates to tolerate.

The misinformation in the tobacco control field is so widespread that hardly a day goes by that an anti-smoking advocate somewhere doesn't publicly declare that smoking may be no more dangerous than vaping. Yesterday, it was the Sedgwick County Health Department (Wichita, KS), which wrote in an op-ed in the Kansas City Star:

LAST：2014 best e cig vaporizer Dual Tank 240 double chambers clearomizer |NEXT：New!!! wholesale 100% innokin iclear 30 clearomizer dual coil, iclear 30 fit with ego battery