Ironically, Dr. Glantz (and numerous anti-smoking groups) are supporting the protective legislation. Which raises the question: Who is acting more as a Big Tobacco front group? The e-cigarette associations, which are fighting protective legislation for tobacco cigarettes, or Glantz and the anti-smoking groups, which are trying to get protective legislation ensconced in every state throughout the country, so that cigarette profits are protected nationwide?

If the electronic cigarette companies are acting fraudulently, then I guess so am I. If you review my blog, you will find that I referred to what comes out of electronic cigarettes as a vapor until quite recently. It wasn't until several months ago that I learned that it is actually an aerosol rather than a vapor. I wasn't using a tobacco industry tactic; I was simply using the term that was most commonly used, and I was using the term that I believed was correct. I don't have any reason to believe that electronic cigarette companies were doing anything different. Moreover, it is not fraudulent for these companies to try to connote reduced harm. Electronic cigarettes are undeniably less harmful than real cigarettes.

A new published online today in JAMA Pediatrics purports to provide data showing that electronic cigarettes are "aggravating the tobacco epidemic among youth."

Instead, I think that studies which specifically compare lung cancer risk between lifelong smokers of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes during the same time period are most informative regarding the relative cancer risks of these products. And multiple studies along these lines, including recent studies, have reported a slightly decreased risk associated with lifetime smoking of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes.

LAST：2014 newest ecig Bauway MT3 vaporizer pen ecig bottom coil Clearomizer |NEXT：Apoloe A518 100% No Leaking Pure Taste Ecig hight quality products