Idiotic policies forced upon us by non-smoking moron bureaucrats kill way more people than all cigarettes put together.
Now, what are they going to do about that ?

What idiotic policies? What moron non-smoking bureaucrats? What deaths? Smoking kills about 5 million people a year. That would wipe out Australia inside five years. Few argue that tobacco is a big killer, in no small part because big tobacco spent decades unsuccessfully trying to prove otherwise: Its best and brightest statistical distortionists now sell their talents to the AGW denialist lobby.

So what of Hon Lik's sucky sucky wonder: You get your nic fix with about as much damage as a cup of coffee. That has big t, big p and big brother very concerned about their tobacco addiction cash cow. Big t wants to bring the old gang back together and start a scare campaign: Very hard as the non-nicotine ingredients in e-cigarettes are commonly used food and pharmaceutical additives.

What idiotic policies? What moron non-smoking bureaucrats? What deaths?
Fester,
You can't be serious ? You're not a Greenie !

Blame them and you empower them, i. More than 5 million deaths a year? Is that net or gross? Many initiatives save lives: Would you rather no vaccination, sewers or treated water? How many more would die without such?

Abuse by power brokers in the role of public guardians is the reason for the ridiculous bans of e-cigarettes. Used to enforce a wide range of public health measures, such power brings a substantial benefit. But in all the cases I can think of, the power has only been wielded where the problem is apparent and the solution well proven. With e-cigarettes, the bans have been made without there being evidence of harm. Given the very apparent danger of tobacco, the act to ban e-cigarettes would seem to be an act of public harm. It would seem to provide benefit only to big t and big p, not to mention the protection of excise revenue.

5 million is a constructive lie
but that is how you get new taxes

spin

[i heard this summation..on yes minester]
smoking stat's deaths[uk]..100.000 *A-TRIBUT-ABLE to smoking

so as deaths ATTRIBUTABLE to smoking include/or include according to generic opinion..[rather than real cause]...[we got no proof..of a direct causal link..

so not all lung disease
is attributable..ONLY to smoking toobacco
[ie other micro particulates/and carsonogenic airosols ignored
but definitivly ATTRIBUTED to smoking]..by clever classification..

anyhow the yes minester..said..""4 billion tax revenue
[that finmances one third the health budget

actual tobacco health related costs..[47 million]

so cost=47 mil..4,000,000
...punitive income raising
[..4 billion]..4.000,000,000

500 are said to die per day in uk
[attributed..to die per day..in uk]

these 500 dying each day..cost 47 million [per year]
500 times 365..= 182,500..but the year/rate was said to be 100,000

heck the numbers dont match the spin
revenue raising..yes minester

[oh adverse reaction to perscribed drugs,.[in OZZZZZ]
reported to be 190,000...in australia alone

why no hysteria
re the real deadly diss ease?
docters arrogance..[how much death....*attributable to arrogance?]

Attributable deaths come from comparing groups of smokers and non-smokers, so the harm from tobacco is in addition to all the other factors you mention. Passive smoking is less harmful, which made it harder to prove.

But I am more interested in knowing whether e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco. There are no major studies as yet, but there are many e-cigarette users claiming very substantial improvement to their health since quitting the use of tobacco. There is also no likelihood that e-cigarettes pose a passive smoking threat.