Due to the latest introduction of the E-Cigarette, Blu’s ecig has begun to capture a large part of today’s market of both smoker’s as well as non-smokers. With the idea that these new ecig’s do not pose any known health side affects- people feel that it is the perfect “sexy” alternative to the already popular cigarette- however with the ability to smoke wherever you like.
With the company recognizing the advantage of the celebrity appeal, they’re marketing campaign consists largely of Stephen Dorff and Jenny McCarthy. With Stephen supporting slogans such as “Take back your freedom” to enforce that you can smoke wherever you want. Posing the internal question, if the celebrity is doing it, it must not be bad- as we have as a society adopted celebrities as role models. Ethically speaking- this company is still selling a product that may prove to pose serious health effects. 
However who is to say they are doing anything bad in the first place? After all there are currently no studies that show that smoking one of these cigarettes is anymore dangerous than drinking a glass of coffee. Playing off this position of “not knowing” allows them to market these ecigs as not harmful to the body or to those surrounding you. Is this ethically incorrect? Some may say yes, and on the flipside some no. Abiding by the law, and marketing to the best of a companies ability is what the objective is for any marketing team. In my opinion this marketing is ethically correct until such studies arise that say otherwise- in which case the marketing plan will be changed to abide by new rules.
Sources:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114868/e-cigarette-ads-should-discourage-tobacco-use-not-promote-it
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/ad_gallery/P150