It's known that BT and BPharma are keeping their heads very much below the line when it comes to e-cigs. Of course, both parties are well aware of the revolutionary potential of the new device and the huge shift it is likely to place on their markets if it were to go 'mainstream'. Both parties are keeping very quiet and both are probably very active in supporting government drives to ban these devices... and finding good reason to do so, one of which may be 'dangerous' unregulated WTA use. The cynical amongst us may believe that these agencies are simply waiting for the first e-cigarette related death before unleashing the full power of their move to ban them.
When the ban happens it will be on the 'liberal' grounds that more time is required for full clinical research into these devices along with thorough testing of the make-up and effects of the juices used - with an ideal time period being two to five years before a report is made and another review of the law carried out. BT and BPh (working with BGovernment) hope that this period will put all the local small traders out of business and cause the chinese to lose interest in production. When the e-cigs are passed for safe use, several years down the line, BT and BPh will be 'machined up' and all ready to step into the vacuum, selling their own 'official' products at vastly higher prices, with a large slice for the tax man, and running massive advertising campaigns.
i disagree with most of this. i don't think that BPharma has enough profit off Nicotine replacement products to warrant large infusions of cash into political pockets. i don't know the figures, but i can't imagine it is even near 1% of their profits. also, BT would have weak legs on the issue, because Nicotine is still coming from tobacco farmers, and BT would be in a prime position (if they are not already, i don't know) to profit just as well from tobacco extractions. also, not all people that use BPharms nicotine replacement products would want to vaporize. also, i don't know where people get the idea that govt can ban a device. would anyone care to cite an example of a "banned device" please? i never heard of such a thing before, and being active in law, i don't know where such authority could come from. i have seen banning "head shops", but that was local banning of a business establishments on municipal lands, not the illegality of a device. also, the ingredients used in e-liquids have already long been tested, and effects known, so would you care to explain about any semi-legitimate justification for testing or banning? i don't know what WTA is, so i miss that point. also, govt can do what it wants, but it doesn't change anything. they can make many things illegal, but that doesn't stop anyone from making them or buying them. markets operate regardless of "statutes/regulations" (which isn't truly human/natural law, but that's another matter). i don't fear govt as much as i fear the ignorance of the general population. injustice doesn't occur at the hands of govt so much as it occurs at the hands of juries. people only fear the power of govt because they are ignorant of law/govt/authority. in the most simple terms, govt authority over people only exists as a collective force to merely do what any individual has a right to do. if i can't do something to you, and you can't do something to me, then govt has no legitimate right to do that thing to anyone either.
practically speaking, i think this is to a very large extent fear mongering, though i won't say 100% as i can see avenues for regulating e-liquids if the market grows and the formulations become more sophisticated. i do await the day when people acquire enough knowledge to begin to put the fear of people back into gov, because until then, we only live in tyranny. mala prohibita "crime" is really just a fraud put over on people because of their ignorance of the nature/origins of authority/law. not enough people question the origin of authority.