For this reason, I believe there is a serious question as to the constitutionality of this provision of the deeming regulations. The government cannot interfere with commercial speech unless that interference is necessary to promote a legitimate government interest. The only way that the government could show that a ban on stating that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes advances a legitimate government interest would be to provide evidence that electronic cigarettes are not safer than real cigarettes. Since such evidence does not exist, the government would have a difficult time making the case. Therefore, I believe that if the deeming regulations are promulgated in their current form, this aspect of the regulations will be successfully challenged by the electronic cigarette industry.

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.

LAST：2014 thick herb extract vape pen electronic cigarette e mart/e smart electronic cigarette/ecig smart pcc |NEXT：Moge Stainless Colorful Best Selling Electronic Cigarette K103 E Cig