99% less death but much more visibility: a moral dilemma

E-cigarettes confuse me. They don't smell, they don't threaten the unwilling with diseases and they're apparently cheaper in relative terms. I've recounted my qualms regarding the real deal before and it seems the new version of the death stick features 99% less death so I should be happy.

I grew up after the smoking ban so I have little memory of what it was like in pubs and restaurants under a cloud of cancer, though there are some recollections of being annoyed with poorly placed air conditioning units in non-smoking areas. On Sundays, during daylight, at my pub there's an average ratio of 1:5 children to adults. My gut reaction was tested when I saw a regular customer use a very real-looking e-cig when there were families around enjoying a quiet lunch. Initially I was used to seeing the thin vapour so thought nothing of it then it dawned on me that this occurence would not be the norm for inquisitive kids. Upon seeing a respectable-looking adult casually enjoying a cigarette, electronic or not, a young non-smoker will remember and either be intrigued or passive. The intrigue is worrying.

As far as I know, electronic cigarettes are initially more expensive and less accessible than the standard death stick. Logic states that an inquisitive onlooker may be inclined to buy fags after seeing them. Obviously I acknowledge that the majority of people will not be affected by seeing cigarettes more often so my concern is minor, not to pun.

Time will tell what the e-cig will do for social, family places like pubs, restaurants and cafes.

For now, I reserve the right to be concerned but further reserve understanding.