name vaping "epidemic"
class inflation, hyperbole
category post hoc, appeal to fear
motivation FUD, statistics wielding
used-by -
science aversion πŸŸ₯/🟧/🟫

As part of the US anti-vaping FUD, some astroturf groups extensively used misrepresentations of teen use statistics to bolster their scare. Claims of "27.5% of children are vaping" were used to obfuscate the relatively low daily/regular use from experimental/one-time consumption. Going so far as to proclaim instant/invariable addiction even. And of course completely ignoring any context, such as the accelerated smoking decline.

It was a largely artifical scare, possibly even being caused by the very same groups - who stoked teen curiousity through reckless anti-vaping ads (more so reckless than e-cigarette vendors). Most scientific circles are appalled by the squanderous use of the term 'epidemic' even. (It's neither transmittable, nor even appropriate terminology for an otherwise habitual ongoing.)

Argument patterns

  • Non-distinction of N-in-30-days from frequent or daily usage
    • Thus declaring all youths as active users, even if it was one-time πŸŸ₯
    • "27.5%" sounded more alarmist 🟫
    • Albeit the 5-6% regular/frequent use should have been fairly concerning (large portion of those were tobacco-naΓ―ve youths 🟧)
    • Less so than the 1.6% daily use (mostly current/former teen smokers)
    • Obfuscation was also used to purport instant addiction dangers
  • Isolated rise statistic "+78%"
    • Was only used as initial scare stat
  • Confounding THC vaping into nicotine vaping (the CDC obfuscated THC vaporizer useπŸŸ₯ in NYTS stats)
  • Stats were used to insinuate a gateway threat🟧, which necessitated ignoring the accelerated smoking decline among US teenagers: lowest in 40 years

Disinformation epidemic

The vaping framedemic had some repercussions for the real pandemic however. It was not just undermining messaging or eroding credibility of public health orgs, but delayed actual action.