I think the best solution is continue on the with the truth.org campaigns and stigmatize the shit out of vapes the same way we stigmatized smoking. I like how we reduced smoking it was a brilliant example of governmentality rather than governing via force.
However, as a former smoker, I'm super annoyed that smoking went down and then the younger generation picked up vapes. We made a ton of progress as a society and then let it fall away.
As for Rothman's argument, it appears to be purposively blind and superficial. It is as if he doesn't know much about the topic but decided to write a knee-jerk reaction to it because it is a hot topic and allows him and his readers to get ideologically riled up. Moreover, it is riddled with half-truths and overt falsehoods.
First, Rothman seems confused that anyone would want to ban the sale of things that provide the users with nicotine along with a host of other chemicals. Not sure why this confuses him. I agree that adults should be able to make their own decisions, but his pseudo-naivety is not endearing.
Second, "We are left to conclude that we are witnessing the raw exercise of power for its own sake." The hyperbole is out of control here. I can hear Hellen Lovejoy shrieking, "Won't someone please think of the multi-billion dollar corporation that saw its rise via youth smoking!"
Third, "the FDA has banned fruit flavors for nicotine vape cartridges (not e-liquids or THC products, which are oftentimes sold alongside nicotine vapes in the very same retail outlets.)" I don't hang out in vape stores that often, but I'm 99.9% sure this isn't true.
Fourth, "No one would even think to ban cancer-causing cigarettes." Also not true: Aside from recent calls by various stake-holders in the community (especially those who like New Zealand raising the age so today's youth won't ever be able to buy them as they age),
"15 US states enacted bans on the sale of cigarettes from 1890 to 1927"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632991/#:~:text=There%20are%20precedents%3A%2015%20US,local%20communities%20and%20state%20governments.
Fifth, "No one would think to ban cars made by certain carmakers because their products were once unsafe." Not so sure relatives of dead Ford Pinto owners were as forgiving as our author. And, as for product bans in general, yea, they are a thing:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/g972/10-beloved-banned-and-recalled-products/?slide=9Sixth, lower nicotine means more smoking. Does it? I know it means less habit forming among new smokers and it makes logical sense that this could be an outcome, but where is the medical evidence that this is what happens?
This feels more like an ideological reaction than a well understood and thought out reaction. I agree that the government shouldn't block people from accessing stupid shit that allows them to engage in direct self-harm, but his argument is only helping me emotionally side with the FDA.