Have you read the other posts in this thread? Several users of e-cigarettes report having reactions with them, so much so, some would revert back to smoking and say they should not be on the market without health warnings!
Yes, some people have a reaction to one or more of the ingredients. Some people can't vape PG so they look for VG juice. Some people find out there are certain flavours that don't agree with them, eg. I can't do most fruit flavours as they make my mouth sore. Some people decide that ecigs are not for them at all and find another method to quit. Some people don't manage to quit at all and end up back on fags. Half of them will die. What was your point again?
Even someone who sells them in London (the first shop to sell them in Covent Garden) says she would NEVER promote them as a healthy option. "The only good smoking is no smoking" (her quote).
Even a shop assistant said that, did she? Oh well then, I'm convinced! Nobody is advocating that non-smokers should start vaping for their health.
Look up the following sites
Links would have been nice but just for this post, OK 
"Should you worry about secondhand e-cig vapors" from here?
This is an opinion piece. The only research referenced is from Stanton Glantz (who we will learn more about below) and that same FDA study which was dealt with in my last post.
"A new cancer study found e-cigarettes affect cells the same as cigarettes" from here?
Here is the article referred to in Nature. The first thing we learn is that this is not a study, it's an unpublished abstract (so not yet peer reviewed) which was presented at a conference. The cells used in the study were not normal human cells but specially modified and cultured pre-cancerous cells. The cells exposed to levels of nicotine similar to that found in vapers showed no difference to the controls, it was the cells exposed to nicotine at levels found in smokers that showed some differences. When you examine the abstract itself you will see that the only thing that is actually suggested by these preliminary findings is that high doses of nicotine can possibly speed the growth of pre-existing cancer. We already knew this. It hasn't stopped Professor John Britton (Director of the UK Centre on Tobacco and Alcohol Studies and heads the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group) from making the following statements:
“Nicotine itself is not a particularly hazardous drug,” says Professor John Britton, who leads the tobacco advisory group for the Royal College of Physicians.
“It’s something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine.
“If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save 5 million deaths in people who are alive today. It’s a massive potential public health prize.” (from BBC)
There is a good commentary on these preliminary findings here. I look forward to the responses from scientists when this study is actually completed, peer reviewed and published.
"ROONEY - e-cigarettes carry harmful effects for smokers,non smokers" - from here?
This is another opinion piece which references yet more opinion pieces. I simply do not have time to trawl back through a spaghetti of links to find where the assertions are coming from. If you want to spend some time doing that and provide some links I will happily comment.
"My boss smokes e-cigarettes in the office is this safe".
This is the 2010 Gupta article again, discussed in my last post.
Not to mention Dr Stanton Glantz Director for the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California San Francisco who says and I quote: E-cigarettes do not just emit "harmless water vapor" Secondhand e-cigarette aerosol (incorrectly called vapor by the industry), contains nicotine, ultrafine particles and low levels of toxins that are known to cause cancer. "E cigarettes contain and emit propylene glycol, a chemical that is used as a base in e-cigarette solution, and is one of the primary components in the aerosol emitted by e-cigarettes. Short term exposure causes eye, throat and airway irritation. Long term exposure can result in children developing asthma". Further "even though propylene glycol is FDA approved for use in some products, the inhalation of vaporised nicotine in propylene glycol is not. Some studies show that heating propylene glycol changes its chemical composition, producing small amounts of propylene oxide, a known carcinogen".
Oh I'm glad you mentioned him, he's always good for a laugh 
Yes, technically 'vapour' from ecigs is an aerosol (like clouds, mist and the steam from your kettle once it becomes visible) - and? Yes it contains nicotine in very small amounts, as already discussed. Of course it contains 'ultrafine particles' - that's what an aerosol is! Yes, it contains very low levels of toxins that are known to cause cancer at much higher concentrations This has already been discussed in my previous post with reference to the Burstyn paper
Propylene Glycol has a very low toxicity profile and is in all sorts of things from household products, cosmetics, toothpastes and mouthwashes, food products, even medicinal inhalers. It's also used in fogging machines at concerts and festivals and used to be pumped around hospital air conditioning systems because it has antibacterial qualities (that practice was only stopped because of economics, not because it did any harm). Some people are a bit sensitive to it and it can cause minor irritation in susceptible people, just like any of countless household chemicals, foodstuffs, animals ... There may be a link with an increased risk of asthma (although it has been used quite commonly in asthma inhalers) - it's hard to tell because the study this statement relies on didn't separate out PG from glycol ethers.
Vaporised nicotine in propylene glycol is not FDA approved because it is neither a food nor a medicine and as such it is not within their remit to approve or ban. This will change as soon as the first medicinal licenses are granted for ecigs, probably at some point this year.
The propylene oxide claim is one of the most dishonest uses of scientific research I have ever seen! This is the study this pressure group has based their statement on - nothing to do with ecigs at all. To what temperature was it heated and in what conditions? How does the heat degradation of solar heat transfer fluids under conditions of stagnation or malfunction relate to what goes on in an ecig? Any ideas? I don't, and I doubt Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights do either. Not even Glantz has argued that propylene oxide is present in ecigs (and he has argued some right old bum gravy), in fact the only place I can find any reference to this link is the American anti-smoker's propaganda club, or whatever they are called.
Incidentally, Stanton Glantz is an increasingly non-credible source as he veers further and further away from scientific honesty. He is not a medical professional, his qualifications are in mechanical engineering.
In fact read the whole article "Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights 2014".
I think I've read enough! How about you read this (create an account to access full paper for free), this, this, this, this or this. Or, seeing as you like opinion pieces, how about this
Also to "ineedasuername" I smoked casually, not like an addict, in my late teens and early twenties when studying for exams, and CHOSE to stop because I could not get rid of a constant sore throat and cough! (Note- without any of the devices available today, just used my common sense really!)
Bully for you! Have you thought of sharing your amazing wisdom with WHO or ASH? I'm sure they'd be everso grateful.
As for sending out former smokers to be with smokers, then that is exactly what smokers used to do to non smokers, pollute the air, how the tide has turned! Now they now don't like the smell, should not be exposed to "harmful" smoke" etc etc. Ironic isn't it?
My agenda is harm reduction and prevention of early death and disease from smoking. What's yours?