Last week, President Obama announced his answer: from smokers. The President proposed a 94 cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax, with revenue going to support a much needed expansion of early childhood education.

However, from a public health perspective, the relevant question is not what results one would obtain if smokers were forced to use a particular strategy, but what results are obtained when smokers make the choice to use a particular strategy. This is why Stan Glantz's approach is inappropriate.

I happen to know many of the authors of the articles that Glantz cites. And I can tell you that the reason they support electronic cigarettes is because the scientific evidence supports these products as a reasonable harm reduction strategy, not because they are being paid off by electronic cigarette companies to take these positions. And unless Glantz has proof or documentation that these individuals have been paid off by Big Vapor, then he has no business making what is a false, public accusation.

LAST：VapeThink 2014 mechanical stainless steel ecig Xiaobai mod |NEXT：e cigarette weed smoking vaporizer vaporblunt2.0 cartomizer cloutank