Many vapers are demanding to be heard by the decision-makers and public health officials. Unfortunately, in reality, this is most often not the case. Even online anti-vaping activists mostly ignore the waves of comments below their statements and refuse to engage with the consumers and pro-vaping public health experts. It would enrich the whole debate if opponents of vaping were willing to engage more and refuse to debate pro-vaping experts and consumers. 

The lack of exchange is not the fault of the pro-harm-reduction camp. Most vapers would be willing to debate the Bloombergs of this world. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this happening is minimal. 

So we asked ChatGPT to simulate a hypothetical debate between an anti-vaping and a pro-vaping health expert. See the result below. What do you think? Would a discussion, in reality, look similar? 

The only unrealistic part here is the anti vaping expert saying: “I understand the harm reduction argument.” 

There can never be enough research for the anti-vaping crowd. See some funny comments anseo. 

Even ChatGPT brings up the debunked gateway theory, so very accurate. A staidéar conducted by Kevin Tan, Jordan P. Davis, Douglas C. Smith & Wang Yang in 2020 found that adolescents who were less satisfied with their life, in general, were more likely to seek risky experiences and have a higher tendency to use illicit substances regularly. As such, e-cigarettes are not a gateway for smoking, but rather bad circumstances in teenagers’ lives lead to various risky behaviours. But no anti-vaping advocate would care…

No vaping debate without a flavour ban! Also very realistic. 

Would you debate on the pro vaping side differently? Let us know in the comments below!