You've applied an argument I didn't make to what I said.
If these are medical devices used to ween off cigarettes, they don't need to be flavored. The alternative is cigarettes. People aren't grabbing the next cigarette because they love the strawberry daiquiri flavor. The fact that they are basically all flavored is proof that anti-addiction is not their primary purpose.
I didn't say they shouldn't be flavored. I said the flavors are proof of what they are.
Harm reduction should be at the core of any policies around smoking and vaping
What if the outcome of that analysis is that the people being brought off cigarettes are not being outweighed by the people being brought into vaping? Would you still make the same argument that harm reduction is foremost? I have a feeling you won't entertain the thought experiment.
There's a perfectly coherent argument that tobacco trends were heading towards extinction until vaping reignited things. All the trends were heading that way. It was largely dying out as a habit among young people. Vaping completely changed that. It's now a growing sector that has the potential to last for a long time and damage a lot of people. And we are still only in the early days of seeing how harmful it is -- but just like with cigarettes, there's a huge apparatus pushing out an information campaign that they're Good Actually and Not Unsafe At All (TM).