The Economist: "No smoke. Why the fire?"

The second article about e-cigarettes from The Economist in the last couple days, this editorial from the print edition asks the same question we all do: If e-cigarettes are, at worst,  far less harmful than cigarettes, why are so many people fighting so hard against them?

E-cigarettes do not just save the lives of smokers: they bring other benefits too. Unlike cigarettes, they do not damage the health of bystanders. They do not even smell that bad, so there is no public nuisance, let alone hazard, and thus no reason to ban their use in public places. Pubs and restaurants should welcome them with open arms.

It would seem to be common sense that an effective, safer replacement for cigarettes, which kill millions every year, should be embraced, not shunned. The article makes a very good case against the misguided puritanism that seems to fuel much of the attacks.

 

The Economist: "No smoke. Why the fire?"