Instead of whining about the tobacco companies evading the FDA tobacco law by using colors to denote the brands formerly known as "lights" or "milds," the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the other major anti-smoking groups should be apologizing to its constituents and to the public for knowingly crafting legislation that would not accomplish its declared purpose.

Ironically, Stan Glantz criticized the study specifically because it examined the effect of electronic cigarettes on quitting among smokers who desired to quit. According to an in the New York Times: "Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study’s limitation was that it tried to measure the effect of e-cigarette use only among smokers who were trying hard to quit, not all smokers."

Is this really the way we want our federal health agencies to treat cigarettes? As a product that is of such little concern that it may be no more harmful than the combination of nicotine and propylene glycol in an electronic cigarette?

I can only hope that this new study will help the FDA realize the folly of its proposed approach to electronic cigarettes and develop a new set of regulations that directly set standards for the safety of the product.

In a grant proposal that was subsequently funded by the state of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), Dr. Manuela Martin-Greens and colleagues from the University of California, Riverside exhibited their fortune-telling skills, claiming to know the results of their proposed lab experiments on mice before actually performing the studies.

LAST：2014 New arrival Olympian afc tank replaceable dual coil herb glass atomizer igo w3 atomizer clone |NEXT：2013 New Cigarrillo electronico eGo-T Solar PCC in France