First, the advocates want e-cigarettes to be taxed, and it would be easier to tax these products if they are defined as tobacco products. It's hard to turn down a revenue stream when you see one, and "anti-smoking" advocates are apparently no different. They see a nicotine-containing product that some people are using for pleasure, and they immediately want to tax it, regardless of the fact that taxing e-cigarettes will increase cigarette use and kill people by removing the economic incentive for smokers to switch from real cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

In my view, this press release, including the headline and the quotes from Drs. Glantz and Dutra, is dishonest.

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.

Specifically, the survey of 2,000 11-18 year-olds in 2014 found that:

LAST：Newest 2014 product Kanger aerotank giant dual coil tank vs aerotank emow fit aspire cf vv 1600mah |NEXT：2014 High quality adjustable voltage ego battery vaporizer vision spinner ii battery