Well yes, it doesn't affect me. Doesn't mean that my viewpoint is not of any value. I'm not sure if this decision "kills" people. I know nicotine is addictive.

Well yes, it doesn't affect me. Doesn't mean that my viewpoint is not of any value. I'm not sure if this decision "kills" people. I know nicotine is addictive. I know giving up addictive stuff is hard. But if you think that having something which is less harmful for people already consuming more harmful stuff and more harmful for the rest who might be pulled into this, I'd believe that some action to reduce the damage being taken is not a unilaterally bad decision. I try very hard to not get addicted to stuff, because I know it's damaging. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to keep something we are pretty sure is bad (nicotine addiction) around just because it's an easy out for someone who's already doing harm for himself and people around him. People fought to contain smoking, they lost. Clearly neither forced abstinence or knowing temperance is an awesome solution. But I'd rather ban something small which has the potential to get to the big bad real soon (e-cigarettes don't come with a doctor's approval as far as I know), because it's doable, than handhold people into something we know is not ideal, and can possibly be much worse.