I like the article. It flows well, addresses most of the significant concerns and counters the politically incorrect take on why people vape and what industry is up to.
What I don't like is the lengths the article is compelled to go to, to ensure its reader that eCigs are not being marketed nor intentionally sold (by this organization) to minors. As this is the biggest political issue, I very much understand the need to go there and emphasize this point. Yet, it keeps that aspect of the dialogue, the one adults think they have a handle on, with a conundrum that amounts to adults saying one thing, doing another, and lying to make themselves feel better.
If adults are forbidden from
vaping, this article implies that they would smoke. And this would be an unwise decision for society. The article states that 'vapor products save lives.' And majority of current vapers (I would say overwhelming majority) are former smokers who likely started when they were minors, and when it was not legal to buy smokes as a minor. Thus, minors are going to smoke or vape, and adults absolutely need to understand this, or play the plausible denial game to feel good about themselves. But if vapor products do in fact save lives, then it is really no different than suggesting a minor use a condom. The differences there would be based on superficialities, not principles.
The more realistic discussion to have is what it actually means to market to children, as compared to making products that will likely appeal to children. I can't think of a product that appeals to many adults, that kids don't find appealing. I actually don't think it possible to make a product strictly for adults that doesn't appeal to at least some minors. I would intellectually enjoy finding exceptions to this, but currently can't think of any. Marketing to kids would seem to apply to venues / media that are predominantly viewed or embraced by minors, coupled with advertising that would show kids using / enjoying the product. I highly doubt vaping has ever been presented in this light, or in this fashion. If it is media or venue that kids may be present, but the advertising is showing adults using / enjoying, then that can't be considered 'marketing to kids.' Though, it would be fair to say the appeal factor for kids will go up. Yet, when I was a minor, it wasn't marketing that lead me to smoking, even while I was a minor during a time when ANTZ was seemingly exercising great control or influence over BT marketing efforts. Furthermore, the first point of 'vapor saves lives' or influences an alternative choice to smoking tobacco, really does outweigh all concerns of plausible marketing to adults where minors may be present. To the degree it does not, and the notion that all vaping marketing must be forbidden in any venue / media where a child may be present, is both ignorant of reality of minors (realizing they will then choose smoking instead) and damaging to the credibility, or even righteous authority, of elders. It makes minors realize, at some point, that they are being lied to, and used as pawns in a game among childish adults.
