Linguistic relabeling of e-cigarettes secured tobacco’s exemption from regulation.

Evidence

To avoid any likeness, they call cigarettes “vape pens” and “hookahs,” referring to a waterpipe that vaporizes flavored tobacco. Surprisingly, several states have ruled that e-cigarettes are not a tobacco product. In camouflaging prose, many other states have ruled that e-cigarettes do not belong in the “tobacco category” (Richtel, 2014d). This is a peculiar exemption given that nicotine, which is extracted almost entirely from tobacco, is almost the sole ingredient in e-cigarettes. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1718

Categorization

• SEED: How renaming a product (‘vape pen’ instead of cigarette) erases its legal identity parallels the moral-disengagement role of euphemistic labeling — a piece on industry weaponizing language to escape regulation would be compelling.
• DEFINE: Bandura’s euphemistic-labeling mechanism of moral disengagement is demonstrated in concrete regulatory garb here.
• QUESTION: Why would several states genuinely rule e-cigarettes not tobacco products given isolated nicotine content? What lobbying or category-law dynamics drove that verdict?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1718