I think the whole problem with the smoking debate is that neither side (pro and anti) are willing to embrace harm reduction, even though the market has introduced many methods to use nicotine and/or tobacco that, to one degree or another, do in fact reduce the harm caused by the manufactured cigarette.

The anit-smoking side views harm reduction as a movement that is completely against their efforts. To the anti-smoking side, vaping is the same as {cigarettes, cigars, pipes, shisha, snus, ...}. The anti-smoking side's stated agenda is absolute eradication of tobacco use in any form, and they've hit all fronts just short of prohibition.

The pro-smoking side take a small-l liberal view: People should be able to use tobacco. Their problem with harm reduction is that harm reduction is also against their stated goals. While the pro-smoking side will happily embrace vaping, they view it as yet another way to enjoy tobacco.

In the meantime, people like their vices. As an exercise, re-write the Economist article, but substitute "alcohol" for "tobacco". As I recall, there was such an article posted to HN that showed how journalism colors the perception of drugs by writing about alcohol use as if alcohol was a new drug, not a very old one.

Back to my point on harm reduction, I believe that sooner or later a stasis should be reached. Harm reduction will be embraced by both sides. I believe that the only way to reduce the negative effects of any substance use to a society is to teach the risks and the safest way to use the substance. I think that the end result will be an open market where the suppliers of the substance will sell their product in any way they can and a corresponding social pressure that pushes users towards more acceptable (less harmful) practices while supporting programs that allow for self-selected cessation.