Reliable statistics on the lung cancer danger of smoking have always been difficult to find ... particularly for second-hand smoke ... possibly because it's eas

Reliable statistics on the lung cancer danger of smoking have always been difficult to find ... particularly for second-hand smoke ... possibly because it's easier to blame cigs than to find real numbers for the hundreds of carcinogens we're all regularly exposed to, all day long, wherever. Society must have its scapegoats, and smokers are a (relatively powerless) minority. The lung cancer statistics I've seen usually for cig-smoking fall around 3 per 100,000 for second-hand smoke and about 50 per 100,000 for a half-pack-a-day smoker. Considering what's in E-cigs, the risks are, at worst, a very tiny fraction of these numbers. So yes, for E-cigs, "For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how they are doing something" is a very likely explanation. But consider the insane response to global warming, and what more should we expect?