As I point out in the piece, the CDC is partly responsible for the backlash against e-cigarettes because it publicly concluded that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking:

The CDC's statement is wrong on its face. If there is reputable evidence from former smokers that e-cigarettes helped them quit smoking, then there is indeed conclusive scientific evidence that e-cigarettes "can work" as a cessation aid.

Futhermore, one of the problems noted in the deeming regulations is the fact that: "The vast majority of the respondents who were aware of these products indicated that they believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes...".

The study authors attack the cigarette companies for substituting another term in the brand name for their products after removing the offending terms ("lights," "ultra-lights," "mild," etc.). But what they fail to acknowledge is that in order to comply with the law, the cigarette companies had no other choice. Had they simply removed the offending descriptor, this would have resulted in their having four or five brands with the exact same name, preventing consumers from having any way to distinguish these brands. Such a result would have effectively removed these brands from the market, which was clearly not the intent of Congress. Had Congress intended to remove these brands from the market, it would have simply banned these brands altogether.

LAST：E mart/e smart electronic cigarette/ecig smart pcc |NEXT：Awesome Design Smok X-Pure rebuildable atomizer rda with 3 Posts Adjustable Airflow