If a tobacco company dared to make the precise statement that this health department is making, anti-smoking groups would be dragging it into court for committing fraud against the American public. Why, then, should we treat this fraudulent statement from a public health department any differently?

The rest of the story is that these tobacco researchers are apparently lying to the public about the legitimate conclusions of their own study in order to mislead the media and the public about the role of e-cigarettes in youth smoking. This is scientific dishonesty. And regardless of one's position on electronic cigarettes, behavior like this should play no role in the scientific debate over the appropriate role for these products.

The weakness of the scientific argumentation of those opposed to electronic cigarettes demonstrates that in 2014, there simply is not much of a scientific argument to fall back on in opposing this innovation. The science isn't going to do it, so opponents have to rely on trite and meaningless assertions like:

6. Very few nonsmokers or long-term ex-smokers are using electronic cigarettes.

Personally, I cannot condone the idea of establishing an award in Dr. Terry's name, and I would hope that the American Cancer Society would rename its award so as not to commemorate the legacy of a physician who - during his tenure as a government leader - directed one of the worst, most unethical, and most racist medical and public health atrocities of our time.

LAST：Delta--Joyetech eVic-S atomizer |NEXT：2014 Newest Electronic Cigarette Copper Manhattan Mod Clone Mechanical 1:1 Clone Manhattan Mod