But now Trump has retreated; he’s avoiding pursuing any sort of vape ban, out of fear that even a soft policy that still allows the sale of some flavors would adversely affect his chance at reelection, according to reporting by the Washington Post . On a Nov. 4 flight, the Post says, advisers told the President that a vape-related ban would cause serious job losses, and upset an unexpected chunk of voters who’ve united for the preservation of vaping under the campaign, “ I Vape, I Vote .” The extremely vocal pro-vapers say no cause is more important to them than maintaining the right to vape flavors—something they still believe to be a healthier, better alternative to smoking combustible cigarettes.

The science on that—and there’s been a lot of science—remains fuzzy. The CDC is zeroing in on the probable cause of the illness that makes people very sick, very fast, but the long-term health consequences of e-cigarettes remain unknown. Depending on which study you read, vaping is either saving the lives of smokers, or just wreaking new havoc on lungs. It’s currently just impossible to know what vaping’s “deal” is, hence the continuing flow of research. No matter what, vaping has gone from a sorta douchey hobby to a full-blown voting issue in a matter of months. The “I Vape, I Vote”-ers are riled up in defense of vaping, which they view as a public Good. But… should they? Is vaping worth saving, or is all this fervor just further proof to the power of nicotine addiction? Are any of absolute evils of e-cigarettes worth the relative good of helping people quit actual cigarettes?