This is blatant employment discrimination, and it is ugly. However, what readers should realize is that it is no more ugly than policies that refuse to hire smokers. My hope is that the obvious inappropriateness of this policy will open employers' eyes to the equal inappropriateness of refusing to hire smokers. Discriminatory hiring practices are simply wrong, and it is time that public health advocates starting standing up for justice for workers.

In fact, the bulk of the evidence suggests that the introduction of the cigarette filter, while obviously not making cigarettes substantially safer, did result in small but measurable declines in cancer risk. These declines occurred due to a tremendous reduction in tar yield, from levels as high as 40-50 mg down to less than 20 mg. The evidence suggests that further declines - to levels below this massive initial drop - were not associated with further declines in cancer risk.

Researchers from the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UCSF have published a in JAMA Internal Medicine which purports to show that electronic cigarettes are ineffective for smoking cessation.

Ironically, Dr. Glantz (and numerous anti-smoking groups) are supporting the protective legislation. Which raises the question: Who is acting more as a Big Tobacco front group? The e-cigarette associations, which are fighting protective legislation for tobacco cigarettes, or Glantz and the anti-smoking groups, which are trying to get protective legislation ensconced in every state throughout the country, so that cigarette profits are protected nationwide?

If this was advice given by Glantz to a smoker he was treating, it would represent malpractice. Instead, it is what I consider to be public health malpractice.

LAST：2014 new arrival elikang original hicig e cigarette vaporizer |NEXT：Metal Tip for Ego Clearomizer