Dr. Glantz's comments on the lack of health benefit in cutting down on one's smoking come in response to one of the reported benefits of electronic cigarettes: that they help many smokers to cut down substantially on the amount they smoke. Glantz : "Dual users, who simultaneously use both products, are unlikely to see much, if any, health benefit because of the continued cigarette use, even if daily consumption drops." In other words, if you are still smoking, there are no benefits from cutting down on the amount you smoke thanks to e-cigarettes.

Sin taxes are normally applied to a product or service that society feels that it sets back the population as a whole. Some examples of sin taxes include gambling, alcohol, tobacco cigarettes, soft drinks, fast food, and etc. The logic behind sin taxes is these product and services are causing more harm to the general public than good and one of the arguments are the tax is to levy/off set health and medical costs generated by these sin products. Do they actually Not really. Generally speaking sin taxes are applied to a product that is much greater than your average sales tax. Sin taxes differ by state by some states do have a much higher than others. For example a pack of cigarettes in South Carolina is less than $5 a pack, in Arizona however you’re looking at more than $10 per pack.

In law, there is a term used to refer to what Glantz and Chapman are doing here. It is called defamation.

LAST：Original Dry Herb Vaporizer Titan-1 Temperature Adjustable Titan green smoke |NEXT：2014 China electronic cigarette hookah HiCig