I think the argument they are referring to is the one that because there were tasty flavors, the products were targeting youth... as if adults do not enjoy tasty flavors. That's one way regulators rationalized bans on vaping products. No one is making similar arguments to ban tasty liquor.

I haven't ruled out that they were trying to target youth with their products, but having nice juice flavors is the furthest thing from a smoking gun, and yet it was presented as one.

> No one is making similar arguments to ban tasty liquor.

People do make these arguments, and they catch on from time to time. There was a moral panic about alcopops in the 1990s in the UK [0]. They weren't banned by regulators but several supermarket chains stopped selling them.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23502892

Some supermarkets not selling them didn't last very long.

The government increased the tax on alcopops several times, but in the 00s the big drink companies started promoting Swedish i.e. sugary cider. Now your 1990s alcopop has some ös in the name and 10% added apple juice.

Juul's advertising was specifically targeted at teens: https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette...

(Referenced paper: http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_M...)

Juul bought ads on socialstudiesforkids, dailydressupagames, and collegeconfidential: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsui...

Thank you for informing!

Somehow every anti-vape campaign I've seen that tries that argument only makes vaping look more desirable. "Flavors so good that kids don't find them gross" is a pretty decent draw.

Many ex-smokers try tobacco flavors when they start vaping. Many switch to other flavors after a while, because tobacco does not really taste nice.