In summary, the rules state:

Remember that I did not argue that a smoker switching from a non-filtered to a filtered cigarette brand will reduce her cancer risk. It may be that vigorous compensation offsets the impact of such a change. However, I do believe that the scientific evidence supports the contention that all else being equal, a lifelong smoker of non-filtered cigarettes faces a slightly higher cancer risk than a lifelong smoker of filtered cigarettes.

If a tobacco company dared to make the precise statement that this health department is making, anti-smoking groups would be dragging it into court for committing fraud against the American public. Why, then, should we treat this fraudulent statement from a public health department any differently?

LAST：Kanger aerotank giant ecigarette cartomizer, electric atomizer, ego e-cig vaporizer |NEXT：2014 ego Twist Electronic Cigarette battery