SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/the-case-for-tolerating-e-cigarettes.html

A great article about the "case for tolerating e-cigarettes" was published otday on the New York Times.  It talks about the balance between e-cigarette legislation and the possible health benefits seen by users. It continues to talk about how big tobaccos involvemnt in the industry now causes a knee jerk reaction to legislators to govern them idietnically to cigarettes, depsite ebidence suggestion they are cleary not the same.

Here is a great excerpt.  Check out the article for more...

"DEBATE over e-cigarettes — battery-powered cigarette look-alikes that heat liquid nicotine but emit a harmless vapor — is raging. New York City and Chicago are considering adding e-cigarettes to their bans on smoking in bars, restaurants and parks, and Los Angeles is moving to restrict e-cigarette sales, even though e-cigarettes don’t generate smoke and, while not proved to be entirely safe for users, are undoubtedly less hazardous than tobacco cigarettes.

The evidence, while still thin, suggests that many e-cigarette users, hoping to kick the habit, use e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to tobacco. Research also suggests that e-cigarettes may be better at helping to sustain smoking cessation than pharmaceutical products like nicotine patches or gums. No one believes nicotine addiction is a good thing, and our qualified support for e-cigarettes is not one we reach lightly. Although some e-cigarette manufacturers have no links to the tobacco industry, Big Tobacco is consuming an ever-greater share of the e-cigarette market. It is hard for public health advocates like us to look favorably on anything the industry wants. But history shows that harm reduction — the doctrine that many risks cannot be eradicated and that efforts are best spent on minimizing the resulting harm — has had an important place in antismoking efforts and suggests that regulation is better than prohibition"