The major purpose of regulating advertising in the first place is to prohibit companies from deceiving consumers. But by precluding companies from telling consumers the truth, the CAP's regulations actually ensure that consumers are deceived. There is no legal nor public health justification for this campaign of deception. It protects cigarette profits at the expense of the lives and health of UK citizens.

The study is also notable because it found no adverse effects of electronic cigarettes on respiratory health among the vulnerable subpopulation of asthmatic patients examined.

I do not begrudge the CDC for holding a different position than I do regarding electronic cigarettes. However, I find it abhorrent that the CDC is supporting this position by disseminating false and misleading information that is completely unsupported by scientific evidence. Our nation's leading public health agency should not be acting in this way.

The results of this study suggest that anti-smoking advocates such as Dr. Glantz are wrong in asserting that very few smokers "have switched away from cigarettes or managed to use them as a bridge to eventually go off cigarettes." Instead, there appears to be a large number of smokers who have indeed switched completely from smoking to vaping, and there also appears to be a large number of smokers who have successfully used electronic cigarettes as a bridge to complete smoking cessation.

At any rate, I'm aware of no data demonstrating that a large proportion of vapers who are ex-smokers were drawn back into nicotine product use after having completely quit smoking.

LAST：top-selling wholesale Ijoy electronical cigarette Etop green smoke e-cigarette ecigs vapor smoke e cig green smoke |NEXT：VG Blend US eLiquid - Blueberry Frost