You're kidding yourself if you think the opposition has anything to do with the name. Their biggest objection is that it "looks like smoking" and therefore counters their denormalization campaign against smokers. No matter what you call it, it still "looks like smoking."
The second biggest objection is that it "reinforces (or supports) the addiction" rather than giving smokers only the choice of "quit or die." No matter what you call it, unless you remove the nicotine and regulate it as a nicotine cessation device rather than a smoking alternative, they will object.
Even the groups who object due to concerns about the unknown, long-term health effects and do not have financial conflict of interest are largely influenced by the prevailing theory (backed with junk science put out by those who DO have the financial interest) that ALL tobacco use (including e-cigarettes) is hazardous and any addiction must be "cured."
Well, I responded somewhat to this in my comment above. But wanted to add that the "caution" reserved for e-cigarettes seems to be outstanding compared to their "caution" regarding pharmaceutical products like Chantix. That product has been undeniably shown to be harmful to many smokers in the SHORT term, yet it is still considered a "better alternative" (reasonable risk) compared to continuing to smoke. Why is the same standard not applied to e-cigarettes, which have had no serious adverse events reported, even though they have been on the market during the same time period as Chantix?
When you consider that double standard, you can see that there really is no altruistic "caution" on their part.
Last edited:
