For example, in August 2018 University of California, San Francisco professor and anti-tobacco advocate Stanton Glantz lectured that the evidence shows smokers who use e-cigarettes quit less not more than smokers who dont use e-cigarettes.[2] A statement on the website for the National Institute of Drug Abuse in the National Institutes of Health notes that e-cigarettes havent been thoroughly evaluated in scientific studies and that not enough data exists on the safety of e-cigarettes, how the health effects compare to traditional cigarettes, and if they are helpful for people trying to quit smoking.[3] Never mind that millions of e-cig users have said that e-cigs were the only thing that helped them quit
Another limitation was that receptivity to tobacco advertising was only measured at W1 and thus we were not able to assess how receptivity changed over the additional 56 surveys that participants completed
Further, they knew that a number of bills proposing the restriction of tobacco sales and advertising were being processed in a number of states, and that if the premption clauses of the Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act did lapse, such bills might mushroom in every state and form a patchwork of regulations that would make nationally organized advertising and sales campaigns for cigarettes extremely difficult
Senior co-author Dr Joel Kaufman, from the University of Washington, said: We were surprised to see how strong air pollutions impact was on the progression of emphysema on lung scans, in the same league as the effects of cigarette smoking, which is by far the best-known cause of emphysema. The professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and epidemiology added: We really need to understand whats causing chronic lung disease, and it appears that air pollution exposures that are common and hard to avoid might be a major contributor. Ground-level ozone is produced when UV light reacts with pollutants from fossil fuels, and the process is accelerated by heatwaves
