What the story demonstrates is that Dr. Glantz has a pre-determined set of conclusions about electronic cigarettes and the tobacco companies' role in inappropriately marketing these products to addict a new generation of kids. When presented with information, he jumps to an immediate interpretation and conclusion that supports his pre-determined schema. Instead of exercising critical judgment and objective evaluation of the evidence, he immediately twists the facts to support his pre-existing position. Dr. Glantz is just one example of a phenomenon that characterizes a number of researchers and tobacco control groups that are vehement opponents of electronic cigarettes for ideological, rather than valid scientific reasons.

Public policy should be evidence-based. This is especiallytrue for public health policy. If we follow Senator Blumenthal’s lead, publichealth policy is going to be formulated based on politics rather than science.

In my opinion, New Jersey has no business pretending that achieving "100 percent smoke-free parks and recreation areas" is some sort of huge public health victory when the reality is that thousands of its casino workers continue to suffer disease and disability from exposure to high levels of secondhand smoke.

• I lied to you when I told you that in the Choi and Forster study, "e-cigarettes were a pathway to renewed or new nicotine addiction."

It makes no sense, from a public health perspective, to ban a product which is almost uniformly used by smokers in an effort to quit smoking or significantly reduce the amount of cigarette consumption, while at the same time, to sanction the sale of the real thing: deadly cigarettes. What Senator Hannon is saying is that he would rather have smokers continue to smoke cigarettes than quit smoking with the aid of a much safer alternative product.

LAST：e shisha pen with diamond tips and huge vapor & e-shisha hookah & smallest e cigarette |NEXT：Hot deals T3S clearomizer 2.4ml clearomizer