This irresponsible advice, supported by a fraudulent lie - that smoking may be safer than vaping - represents public health malpractice, in my opinion. In fact, as it may convince some smokers to continue smoking rather than switch to a non-tobacco product that has helped thousands quit smoking, it could actually constitute medical malpractice, as this negligent information and advice could actually lead to medical harm.

What it means is that the ERS would rather that a smoker who cannot quit using other means continue smoking than switch to electronic cigarettes. The ERS clearly states that it opposes the use of electronic cigarettes, period. Thus, it implies that it opposes the use of electronic cigarettes by a smoker who is unable to quit via any other smoking cessation method. For such an individual, the ERS statement implies that it would actually prefer the smoker to continue smoking than to quit via the use of electronic cigarettes.

Vape a Vet’s primary focus is to help Veterans and their families conquer their current tobacco habits by providing free vaping supplies to them. Their motto statement is the following:

It is also important to mention that banning electronic cigarette advertising would violate the First Amendment rights of e-cigarette companies.

Glantz is lucky that he didn't name any specific electronic cigarette companies. If he had, he would have opened himself up to a potential lawsuit.

LAST：2014 new mech mod Knight mod,nice clone Knight mod clone, copper+carbon fiber knight mod |NEXT：Hot Selling Stainless Steel Vaporizer Colored Rainbow Stingray Mod