It's an absolutely ridiculous idea, that flavored tobacco entices children to smoke. There are absolutely no studies, that I am aware of, that show that this is true. I think the danger was grossly inflated, to give the antis something to get a "victory" over, so they can keep getting their funding and so politicians could look good, because tobacco isn't going away.
Well, smokers became the new "immigrants, blacks, gays" of the new millennium you could say. We're forced to sit at the back of the bus now, wait, I mean riding on the front bumper.
There are a lot more people who drink than people who smoke. Liquor and (supposedly) NRTs aren't shown to cause cancer, emphyseima and heart disease. The liquor of choice for most alcoholics is rarely a fruit flavored liquor. Liquor and NRTs don't carry the social stigma of tobacco, so they aren't ever going to be a target. They don't have ridiculous claims against them, like they can cause a heart attack within 30 minutes if you're exposed to them just once??? Since smokers are such a small percentage of the population and most non-smokers dislike second-hand smoke, it's easy to vilify and hard to get the majority of the population to care if we have flavors or not. Smokers (and now vapers) are an easy target. We are considered no less than drug addicts, regardless of the actual impact of our use has on society as a whole. We may as well be crack ......., as far as these people are concerned. Thdey don't agree that our habit affects no one else. They don't want their kids to start smoking, so they don;t want us to be seen nor heard.
One could argue that alcohol hurts more people and other non drinkers more than smoking does. You don't hear of "smoking and driving", a husband being an abusive smoker, missing work because they smoked a lot the night before, or even smoking too much you overdosed and died. The only reason it seems anti's exist are false claims and the fact it smells. I have an advocating stance for drug use (besides obvious "hard" ones) so I don't mind being called a "drug addict" for vaping. Yes, nicotine's a drug, and yes, one could say I'm addicted. I also feel people should be able to do whatever they choose to their bodies as long as they're non-violent and capable of either functioning while using it or responsible enough to avoid problems with it. The "War on Drugs" painted non-violent drugs users a bad picture, and now anyone who has a vice suffers from the stigma.
This is the political climate we live in. We have no "right to smoke" or "right to vape." We are not a protected class. Our right to pursue happiness ends when it endangers ourselves and other members of society - the same reason street drugs are illegal. People view our habit as infringing on their personal space and endagering their children, by enticing them into starting an unhealthy and potentially deadly habit - smoking. They have been told that e-cigs are a gateway device for tobacco.
Yes, but do we have to live in this current climate? We can change it. And yes, I DO have a right to vape/smoke/drink/die should I want to. The government can take that right away over my dead body. As for the whole "protect the children" argument, the government or anyone else who uses that argument is a terrorist. No, not someone who's going to blow up something, an actual terrorist - someone who tries to inflict fear to satisfy an agenda.
We have to get the numbers to prove them wrong. We have to somehow show them that kids DON'T think e-cigs are cool and they are NOT interested in them. We have to prove to them that the large majority of e-cig users (and the target market) is already smoking and over 30 years old. We have to show them, through approved testing, that these users are actually better off by using e-cigs than using tobacco. We have to show them that using an e-cig is to a smoker what low fat frozen yogurt is to a person trying to avoid fattening ice cream and eat healthier. (Dessert is not a necessity, it's a luxury, a treat. But if you're going to do it, make a healthier choice.) But we can't make those claims until we have undeniable proof. For that, we need a respected, wealthy medical organization to conduct studies and testing. (This won't affect the FDA approval, but it would have a huge impact on public opinion, if the FDA report is shown to have been incomplete and inconclusive.)
I have to say, as a 19 year old, e-cigs appealed to me when I was 18. No, not because I saw it and said "man, I wish I was that cool..." but because I was already a smoker and wanted to preserve my health without giving up nicotine. Yes, these are a way of "diet smoking", I definitely agree with that, but still, if you're going to eat ice cream, at least go for the good stuff. If you eat that much ice cream that shaving off a few calories per serving will help you out, it's time to cut back 
. But yes, we do need testing. I wish I was a doctorate student in chemistry right now so I could use it as a research project for my thesis. But we do need to sway the public opinion - and not just for PV's. Fighting for PV's without trying to fix what's really wrong (the anti-smoking mindset) is just fighting our battle without fighting the war.
The "right to vape" argument will never get us anywhere. However, the "right to live healthier & safer" WILL. But we have to prove what we are saying is TRUE, first.
