I have no problem with a $2 per pack cigarette tax in Philadelphia to reduce smoking rates and to fund an aggressive anti-smoking campaign that would also provide money for research to prevent and treat smoking-related diseases and subsidize the treatment of smoking-related diseases. However, the idea of making public education permanently dependent upon continued high sales of cigarettes is bordering on insane.

Moreover, these politicians - while callling for a ban on flavorings in fake cigarettes - are not calling for a similar ban on all flavorings in real cigarettes. They are not calling for a ban on the use of menthol cigarettes to addict kids. They are not calling on legislation to amend the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to remove the menthol exemption. They are not calling upon the FDA to ban menthol.

Now, if those 100 resistant smokers were then followed for six months, we would expect that very few of them would quit smoking because all of them had already tried e-cigarettes and failed.

For the combustible cigarette market, this is a dream come true. In fact, it seems too good to be true because it is a supposedly public health protection agency that is issuing this immense market protection.

The rest of the story is that despite the Common Rule and the intense efforts to try to prevent human subject violations in research, there are still occasional studies which find their way through the cracks. This is one bad example. It is an example of an unethical experiment that should never have been approved by an IRB in its current form because it blatantly violates the ethical principles of both consent and informed consent.

LAST：GreenWing electronic cigarette kit EVOD blister kit |NEXT：Hangsen C5R Pro No leaking 2.4ml ce6 atomizer e cigarette ego c twist e cig