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:

Despite its obvious bias against electronic cigarettes, what was the worst thing that SAMHSA could say about the health risks of vaping:

While anti-smoking groups push for bans on vaping in all workplaces and public places - even outdoor parks - throughout the nation, they are doing virtually nothing about the problem of secondhand smoke that is actually killing people: nearly half of the states still fail to protect workers from tobacco smoke exposure in bars, restaurants, and/or casinos.

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.

LAST：China Electronic Cigarette Wholesale EGO CE4 |NEXT：Telescopic full mech mod ecig 18650 ecig1000 vaporizer from original manufacturer