Balanced reporting from-The Economist

[Orb Skewer]

Sending the wrong smoke signal

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...fsrc=scn/tw_ec/sending_the_wrong_smoke_signal

Careless regulation costs lives
"So far it seems that most regular “vapers” of e-cigarettes are smokers or ex-smokers. But over time the prospect of a relatively harm-free nicotine kick could draw in many new users. This risk, and the lack of long-term research on the residual risks of nicotine, argue for restricting the sales of e-cigarettes to children. But as far as adults are concerned, they should be subject to less regulation than alcohol (which is far more harmful) and perhaps to no more than caffeine, another addictive and mildly poisonous substance whose widespread use governments see no need to curb."

 

[Petrodus]

The last sentence in this article.

"Politicians should stand back and let a thousand e-cig brands bloom."

 

[cdsaint66]

I really like this article. It's good to see more and more well thought out and well written positive articles.

 

[bruiser]

The article even hit the pharmaceutical industry a lick.

 

[Vocalek]

The remainder of the paragraph quoted in the OP is worth highlighting as well:

The risk of getting more people addicted to something relatively harmless is well worth taking, given the opportunity for curbing dramatically the world’s single-most-harmful voluntary activity. Politicians should stand back and let a thousand e-cig brands bloom.

 

[Orb Skewer]

"They-cant handle the truth"

http://www.economist.com/news/busin...s-tobacco-industry-changing-fast-kodak-moment

 

[Orb Skewer]

Who opposes E-cigarettes, and why" ?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-11