I believe the point you may be missing if you are looking at this from a health and harm reduction standpoint is the selling point to active smokers of being able to vape anywhere.
I honestly don't believe that indoor smoking bans made it into law based on health issues... I think it was the pretext, but at the bottom of it, it was just non-smokers finally getting the votes to not have to sit in smoky rooms. I believe this more than ever because of the growing number of places trying to ban smoking in parks, etc. The proponents may say that's a health issue, too, but I'm certain that any sane proponent realizes it really isn't... they just don't want to near smoke, no matter how harmless it is.
That said, I do not -- repeat, do not -- want to see e-cigs included in any anti-smoking laws. I'm against the indoor smoking bans in principle... a restaurant owner should have the choice whether to allow smoking or not. We've lost that battle, and I don't want to lose the battle of a business owner being able to decide whether or not to allow vaping.
Still, I can't stand behind the "vape anywhere" idea. No matter how harmless it may be, it does blow clouds of steam into other people's space, often with significant odor.
The bottom line, though, remains this: while I'm in a favor of someone writing a decent article about how e-cigs can be used to get around the ban, I'd like to eee it include the point that not every e-cig user has that in mind. There's a big difference between an article entitled, "E-cigs may bridge gap between smokers and non-smokers," and "Smokers finding loopholes to get around laws."
If you ask me, an article, "Non-smokers surprised to find they don't mind being around vapers," would be the ideal article.
.
