Only in U.S. cities will I see scare-tactic advertisements against e-cigarettes. What's strange to me is that the Truth campaign is sponsoring some of them. The Truth campaign is a result of a liability suit of several states vs the cigarette companies, and it is intended to pay for anti-smoking advertisements and smoking cessation programs. It appears to be a blatant violation of the terms of the judgement.

Wow, that's a dirty tactic. Especially when you consider that what's bad about smoking is tobacco and e-cigs don't necessarily have tobacco.

What's bad about smoking is burning tobacco.

Important distinction.

You can be even more general than that. Inhaling burning organic matter is probably worth avoiding. There is some good evidence that wood smoke is also quite bad for you.[1]

[1] https://www.uvm.edu/~susagctr/Documents/Woodsmoke.pdf

e-cigs don't even necessarily have nicotine.

I like to vape on occasion - mostly at home, indoors, when I am coding or doing something similar on my computer in my office.

My vape of choice is a custom menthol blend with caffeine - and zero nicotine.

Caffeine?! That's very interesting. Got any links about vaping caffeine?

There's a couple of big things against them right now.

A) they are unproven. Many people believe that something that isn't proven safe or unsafe is not better than something unsafe that has been heavily scrutinized and studied. What if there's a much worse effect that we dont' know about yet?

B) They are unstandardized. Each producer can be putting who-knows-what in the oils.

C) It's still smoke. When they first came out, a lot of people got e-cigs with the idea that they could get around smoking bans, such as on planes or in bars (in places that banned that). This has resulted in a massive backlash, because it really wasn't health problems that caused those bans, it was the fact that nobody wants to sit in someone elses smoke cloud. This is causing a big social stigma against e-cig users.

It isn't smoke, and it isn't burnt plant matter.

In theory the vapour might have as strong a smell as cigarette smoke; in practice even the most strong smelling vapours are mostly comparable to the smell of personal fragrances, and we are ways off from banning those as well.

In practice, there's often no useful difference between a thin cloud of vile-smelling smoke and a thick cloud of fruity-smelling vape: many people would prefer to avoid both. (Also, the vape cloud leaves much more residue than smoke did, just much less foul). Best policy seems to be to use the things only where actual smoking is allowed to try to avoid annoying bystanders.

I wonder if people would still be annoyed if it didn't produce a cloud?

To me, it seems like many people have this weird "ick" about natural biological functions. Some are understandable - like body waste, and sneezing/coughing that could spread contagions. Regular smoking I can understand from the standpoint that it smells bad.

But vape clouds typically smell good. But they are visible. So people are reminded of "ick - breath!" meaning something similar to coughing/sneezing (and not covering your mouth/nose)...

Yet, nobody seems to have an aversion to everyone around them just "breathing" normally - or even an exasperated sigh or huff - which is arguably just as much breath coming out as someone vaping.

Just that it is invisible - and now no "ick factor" if you will.

It's kinda crazy; here is something that can and could really help smokers, yet being vilified because of some weird hangup people have with breathing - because it is visible. It is similar to how some people love to eat chicken nuggets, but give them a bone-in chicken wing and all of a sudden it is "gross - it has bones" - like the nugget is somehow more sanitary or further removed from the chicken because it is boneless?

/humans are weird

Vape clouds smell awful. Like all the artificial flavourings I dislike, applied the way a 13 year old boy applies deodourant.

If it's rude to spray perfume or eat smelly food, then it's also rude to vape.

No-one is saying it's not rude. What we're asking is whether it should be illegal. And your own comparisons suggest that it shouldn't be.

On the other hand, it's a big thick cloud of vapor coming from someone's mouth.

What about a thick cloud of... carbon dioxide and water vapor, from the people standing around you?

...which is difficult to perceive unless they are close enough to be obviously breathing on you. Or have bad breath. Neither of which is appealing.

On an individual level, I find them nearly as obnoxious as normal cigarettes even without tobacco in them and someone is just smoking "perfume" around (why bother at that point?). I have allergy sensitivities to aerosols and perfumes and strong smells and just about any smoking tends to infuriate me.

I see so many people use e-cigarettes as an excuse to smoke indoors, even in light of public smoking bans, and get upset when I complain that they make me feel sick. Indoor air quality isn't just about carcinogens or aerosolized tobacco, but allergens and respect for common spaces that we all have to share.

Well for one thing, in my state you have to be 18+ to purchase them, which makes it just as convenient to smoke actual cigarettes for kids.