Moreover, what scientific evidence is the FDA looking for in order to approve a simple claim that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes? If the overwhelming current evidence is not sufficient, then no evidence will ever be sufficient because there is no further research that is necessary in order to draw this conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a product which burns tobacco and produces tobacco smoke with more than 10,000 chemicals including more than 60 carcinogens and causes more than 400,000 deaths per year is more harmful than a product which merely heats and aerosolizes nicotine from a solution of propylene glycol.

My argument was echoed in a to the article by Steven Pinkerton, a public health researcher from the Medical College of Wisconsin, who pointed out that: "the major tobacco companies demonstrated 100% compliance with the law by eliminating all terms specified in the FSPTCA [Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act]--the use of colour terms to designate sub-brands is not regulated by the FSPTCA."

If this is the kind of "scientific" reasoning that is going to guide the nation's decisions on how to handle tobacco products which are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year, then we may actually be better off reverting back to the "wild, wild west" that Stan Glantz keeps talking about. At least in that wild west, consumers are able to make reasonable judgments about the relative safety of different products. In the FDA-regulated "east," consumers are going to be kept hidden from even the most basic truths: that electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and that they are much safer than the real thing.

LAST：Cree/Bridgelux chip 252w Apollo led grow light |NEXT：New product!!!RainbowHeaven igo w3 atomizer clone signet star dripping atomizer