But are they harmless? If they’re made with chemicals in an unregulated industrial process, it seems unlikely. Less harmful than ”analog” cigarettes, maybe—but completely harmless seems like an unlikely stretch.
Ecig advocates take a harm reduction approach, rather than the quit or die approach of anti-nicotine zealots. All evidence suggests that ecigs are vastly safer than burning tobacco.
Here is a recent survey of all available research. We could further extend this by looking at known cancer/cardiovascular risks of the small bits of concern with ecigs then compare to burning tobacco and you are talking about 1% danger comparatively: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642...
There is some movement for hte industry to regulate itself and suggest sensible rules, but if ecigs are "deemed" under the 2009 Tobacco act, it will potentially wipe out all innovation because of the rule that any new product be "substantially equivalent" to a product on the market before some arbitrary date in 2007 they set. There's all sorts of horrible rules being proposed which go beyond just making sure the liquid isn't contaminated.
I as a non-smoker can buy an e-cigarette, so one should judge the safety of the product on its own, not compared to something that is clearly harmful.
Methadone, for example, is used for harm reduction. It's only available as an prescription alternative to a harmful addiction. And still, substitution therapy is treated like any other form of medicine, i.e. the industry has to prove the merits of their product before it can go on sale.
Nicotine patches, which are available OTC to the general public, at least had to be proven as safe in clinical trials.
