e-cigarettes

If somebody invented a device that could save the lives of millions of smokers, should society encourage its use?

One of the biggest problems with journalism -- particularly science journalism -- is the fact that many people who practice it aren't qualified to do so.

We always knew when our PhD advisor was applying for a grant. He would pace the hallways, then go outside and smoke. A lot. (Thankfully, he's quit since then.)

Not that long ago, if a company had invented a far safer way to deliver nicotine to addicted smokers, politicians would be celebrating. Smoking is one of the leading preventable causes of disease and death in the world.

There is a stunning lack of practicality in modern-day America.

There's no doubt about it. E-cigarettes have the potential to save millions of lives.

Despite the mounting data about the benefits of electronic cigarette use, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo must not be getting the memos.

As a physician, I can unequivocally say that about 70 percent of the illnesses I have encountered has been either directly or indirectly related to cigarette smoking.

E-cigarettes are "effective in helping people quit smoking" and "95% safer than smoking."* Additionally, there are "no health risks to bystanders."

The King County Health Department, which serves mostly the city of Seattle and its suburbs, has recently earned a reputation for being driven by politics rather than by evidence-based medicine or common sense.