The restriction is inappropriate because it prohibits companies from simply telling consumers the truth about the relative safety of their products. Arguably, this is the single most important piece of information that every consumer needs to know. Keeping consumers in the dark about the relative safety of electronic cigarettes vs. tobacco cigarettes does not serve any public health interest. In fact, it does just the opposite.

In 2014, the tobacco companies have changed their behavior and have ceased and desisted from arguing that even major differences between cigarette brands render them different in terms of overall public health risk. In fact, Philip Morris has explicitly the following: "As of today ... there is no cigarette on the market that public health organizations endorse as offering 'reduced risk.' If smokers are concerned about the risks of cigarette smoking, the best thing to do is quit."

The rest of the story is that GASP as well as New Jersey politicians who are pretending to show a genuine concern for the public's health are actually showing little but hypocrisy and political cowardice. In 2014, I don't see any need for this kind of public health nonsense.

It's not clear to me why researchers who oppose electronic cigarettes are so anxious to condemn these products that they are willing to use inappropriate research designs to fulfill such an aim.

LAST：Cylapex Vivi Nova Tank Clearomizer without burning, top grade quality guaranteed coil head changeable |NEXT：New pcc e cigarette, 510 AIO smart pcc, Innokin AIO PCC pack