In her on CDC's "Tips from Former Smokers" anti-smoking campaign, Nancy Wride of Elements Behavioral Health made an interesting observation. On its web site describing a variety of possible strategies to quit smoking, the CDC does not list electronic cigarettes. Wride therefore asked the CDC why electronic cigarettes are not included on its web site as a potential smoking cessation aid.

I happen to know many of the authors of the articles that Glantz cites. And I can tell you that the reason they support electronic cigarettes is because the scientific evidence supports these products as a reasonable harm reduction strategy, not because they are being paid off by electronic cigarette companies to take these positions. And unless Glantz has proof or documentation that these individuals have been paid off by Big Vapor, then he has no business making what is a false, public accusation.

Nevertheless, the anti-smoking groups insist that the tobacco industry funding should have been disclosed. For one, they argue that section 5 of the form insists that authors disclose any other conflicts of interest, even if they occurred prior to the past three years. Second, they argue that the history of funding by tobacco companies is well within the spirit of the disclosure requirement and that the authors have an obligation to let readers know that in the past, they have had financial relationships with Big Tobacco.

For several years, the Rest of the Story has been arguing against policies by which employers refuse to hire smokers. My main argument is that this is a form of employment discrimination and is therefore unwarranted. Further, I have suggested that refusing to hire smokers opens the door to discriminating against other groups, such as obese persons.

LAST：2014 Patent product Venus e-cigs replaceable batteries high-end crystal electronic cigarette wholesale China |NEXT：New style upcoming TITAN 2 Hebe Vaporizer Dry Herb vaporizer