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.

What is most disturbing to me about this story is that there is clearly no room for a difference in opinion in the tobacco control movement about certain dogmatic elements of the field. You can't express disagreement without facing personal attack, no matter how well you support your argument with scientific evidence. Like a religion, you can't challenge the gospel-like nature of movement's mantra without being viewed as a heretic.

I understand the venom that these policy makers have for electronic cigarettes because they look like cigarettes; however, their desire to protect tobacco cigarettes from competition from these safer products is not enough to justify urging their state Attorneys General to trample on the Constitution and to violate well-established state contract law.

Yesterday, I that the 2014 Surgeon General's , released last Friday, failed to disclose the financial conflicts of interest of many of its authors. Specifically, the report is hiding the fact that many of its authors have or had financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the smoking cessation products about which the report provides a misleadingly positive review.

LAST：Disposable elegant 510 nano vaporizer 808d pcc e cigarette |NEXT：Colorful disposable e shisha electronic cigarette in China