But today, I report that opponents of electronic cigarettes are using more backhanded tactics than simply drawing unsupported scientific conclusions or distorting the science to support its preconceived position.

Before making an accusation like this, it is imperative that Dr. Glantz have evidence that electronic companies have mobilized these think-tanks to push their policy agenda. But the evidence that Glantz cites to support his accusation merely demonstrate that these groups have taken positions which support electronic cigarettes as a potential harm reduction strategy for tobacco control. None of the documents that Glantz cites indicate that any electronic cigarette company had anything to do with orchestrating, mobilizing, or affecting the positions taken by these groups.

It is easy to see why this methodology is inappropriate to assess smoking cessation rates among smokers who use e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking.

These results hardly seem consistent with the CDC's statements that electronic cigarette use is causing an alarming increase in youth smoking.

The Congressmembers are wrong even on that score. The MSA clearly defines a cigarette as a product that contains tobacco. Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco. Thus, they do not meet the MSA's definition of a cigarette.

LAST：color changing beach wedding souvenirs LED candle |NEXT：2014 new product aspire premiun kit aspire e cig cf vv battery wholesale