There will always and without exception be a personal financial motive behind any statement by supposedly qualified people that purports to suggest a reason why e-cigarettes should be restricted. I have never encountered an exception to this rule and do not expect to ever see an exception. You should probably consider the moral compass of someone who willingly facilitates a great number of preventable deaths for personal gain before you give any credence to the invariably spurious justification they may concoct.
"If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save five million deaths in people who are alive today. It’s a massive potential public health prize."
- J Britton, Royal College of Physicians
"E-cigarettes are probably about as safe as drinking coffee."
- R West
"Opposition to THR is an entirely dishonest enterprise."
- Phillips, Rodu
"Three months of additional smoking poses a greater risk to someone’s health, on average, than a lifetime of using a low-risk alternative."
- CV Phillips
"...every one of the anti-smoking groups which has called for electronic cigarettes to be pulled off the market ... has a financial conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the smoking cessation drugs."
- M Siegel
"The rate of smoking in Great Britain has remained largely unchanged over the last five years."
- ONS, UK official statistics, 2012.
Because smoking prevalence in the UK has remained almost static for several years at around 20% of adults, and because the population has grown in that time, it appears that the number of smokers has risen by around 0.5 million since 2008. It seems unlikely that the UK's profitable but clearly useless tobacco control industry will be widely advertising that.
last update 2014-03-09