It looks like the article is behind a paywall, so I can’t access the full text directly. However, based on the available summary and context, here’s an overview of what The Economist is likely discussing.

How Harmful Are Electronic Cigarettes?

With vaping regulations tightening worldwide, governments are moving to ban or severely restrict electronic cigarettes. Belgium and France have already prohibited disposable vapes, and similar laws may soon take effect in the UK and New Zealand. Meanwhile, over 30 countries—including Brazil, India, and Turkey—have outright banned all vaping products. But are these bans justified? While critics argue that vaping poses health risks, proponents claim it serves as a less harmful alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes. The Economist seems to be weighing whether the risks of vaping outweigh its potential benefits, particularly in helping smokers quit.

Key Points:

• Vape Bans Spreading: Belgium banned disposable vapes on January 1st, and France followed on February 24th. Other bans are expected in the UK and New Zealand.
• Broad Global Restrictions: Over 30 countries, including Brazil, India, and Turkey, have outlawed all vaping products.
• Justification for Regulation: Critics cite health concerns, but some scientists believe vaping could be a less harmful substitute for smoking.
• New Zealand’s Strict Rules: A new law taking effect on June 17 will even prevent specialized vape retailers from discussing the products with customers.
• The Debate: Governments are balancing public health risks with potential smoking cessation benefits.

As vaping restrictions spread, the question remains: are these bans protecting public health or pushing users back toward traditional cigarettes? It seems The Economist is suggesting that the benefits of vaping may still outweigh the perceived dangers.

Would you like me to find more scientific evidence on vaping risks and benefits?
Link to Article