I have a feeling that this comparison is a little overdramatic, but I get your point and I agree that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places. If they absolutely must smoke, then they need to go in designated areas outside. The government should have control over this because it is for the better of the entire population, not just a few whiny people.

With that said, E-Cigarettes should be allowed since they (so far) don't seem to have any secondary effects.

Carcinogens are not about receiving x amount of dosage over time. All it can take is one carcinogen to cause a cancer. It's more like a constant gamble than anything.

Short answer, the less carcinogens in the air, the better. Exposure time has nothing to do with it.

If anything it should be marketed and encourage for people to switch form traditional cigarettes to the new electronic. No smoke or disease from it solves issues 99% of people had with smoking.

A patron should have a right to goods and services without the risk of bodily harm. 

The federal goverment hasn't made any laws banning smoking.  The laws were all passed on a state/local level and are different everywhere you go.

I need to see more information on e-cigs in general before I make up my mind about them, but on the whole I think they should be given some major privileges because they don't produce Carbon Monoxide or as many carcinogens.

Still, I have no idea why we've had e-cigs for years and no one's thought to use it for medication. I'm no doctor, but if even a fair bit of the inhaled vapor winds up in the bloodstream, couldn't a diabetic take insulin like this with no needles?

Whether the government, or you, wants them to or not, they do drink and drive, and they always will.  You will never be able to stop it, no matter how hard you try. 

Doesn't his statement still stand? If, going by his example, you are surrounded by smoke once every six months, you're still so unlikely to develop cancer from it, versus being exposed to it every day. If you gamble once every six months, you win less often than if you gamble every day.

Difference is, in this gamble, "winning" = dying.

E-cigs contain a mixture in most cases of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine, ethyl alcohol, and food grade flavourings. Some contain nicotine (the one's I use do). While nicotine is acutely toxic if you drink it, it is not a carcinogen, neither are the other ingredients (they are all FDA approved food additives). Second hand risk from these devices is negligible, and the odour is generally not offensive.

So here you have an alternative to smoking that is non-toxic (unless you drink the liquid in quantity... a foolish and improper waste of the substance). It is safe for use around others, and is an excellent alternative to smoking for those who already smoke.

The government will ban this as soon as they possibly can.

You are not being forced into any place that allows smoking. You shouldn't force every business in the country to ban something just because you don't like it.

What's bizarre about this kind of legislation is that it forces smokers to stand outside in the public street, where you should actually lay some claim because your taxes paid for it (or, as the story goes), and your far more likely to be walking down a street, and past these smokers, than you ever were to go into any one of those stores.

@SamuelRSmith
You're right I'm not forced to go into any business and if that business allowed smoking indoors they wouldn't be a business for very long. Thankfully smokers are a dying breed. In 20 years it will be extremely rare to see a smoker.