I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me there might be a case against states that ban e-cigs while still allowing the sale of tobacco products, much in the same way people sue big companies whose pollution of local water supplies leads to horrific cancer rates among those living nearby. That is to say, the banning of e-cigs and not tobacco implies that the states are endorsing cigarette smoking over vaping, despite the KNOWN dangers of smoking. It's like these ban-happy states would rather see people continue to risk major heath problems and eventual death in order to preserve tax revenue.
I know states like New York, which is currently about to ban e-cigs, have a fairly strong position in that there is insufficient testing data to really say, conclusively, that e-cigs are "safe" when compared with tobacco cigarettes. But it seems to me that their position is made significantly weaker when they don't ban tobacco in light of clear, non-refutable evidence of how dangerous it is.
Smoking has been proven to be an addiction. While many people have been able to successfully beat this addiction through various means, the fact is that many also have not been able to. Nicotine, whether delivered through burning tobacco or heated vapor, is the chemical that makes cigarettes addictive. So by banning one form of potentially harmless nicotine delivery system in favor of a government sanctioned, highly taxed, and very deadly nicotine delivery system seems legally grey.
I have a feeling there might be lawsuit potential as a result of these bans, even so far as to see it going to the Supreme Court. But again, I am not a lawyer.
Common sense tells me the state governments are acting improperly, but does common sense have a legal leg to stand on? I am not so sure.
