I think these devices are definitely a step in the right direction but I am not so sure that regulation of them is pointless. Surely at the very least we can ag

I think these devices are definitely a step in the right direction but I am not so sure that regulation of them is pointless. Surely at the very least we can agree that all drugs (and e-cigarettes are certainly a drug delivery device) should meet some minimum standards for quality, purity and safety. For example, does the dose of nicotine in a cartridge match what is advertised? Also, it may be worthwhile to restrict the sale of e-cigarettes to adults. It should be very easy [1] to show that the e-cigarette is as safe or safer than a cigarette. The problem of the fake smoke is easy enough to deal with-- simply manufacture a version that does not include propylene glycol. The fake smoke sounds obnoxious anyway. The whole reason for banning cigarettes in public are the second-hand effects; it seems silly to replicate an aspect of them. Once the safety issues are worked out it just becomes a morality issue: do we care about cigarettes because they are addictive or because of their public health implications? I would argue that, as a society, we should concern ourselves primarily with the latter. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the push-back is because of the addictive nature of the nicotine. 1. Generally when you introduce a new drug or device that is similar to an existing product, there is a much lower regulatory bar to cross because the precursor has already gone through the more rigorous demonstration. However, there may be more red tape in this case since the FDA doesn't even have explicit authority to regulate tobacco yet.