Treating vaping like smoking is wrong, though. They are nothing alike besides containing nicotine.

And you can't even compare that because the forms of nicotine are different. The one used in modern vapes is only about 12% as bioavailable as the nicotine in tobacco.

Vaping is 95% less harmful, but there's a gigantic misinformation campaign against it. Most studies that show that vaping produces harmful substances either had methodology that was designed to produce harmful results by using the devices in ways humans wouldn't, or the scientific reporting on the study grossly misrepresented the findings to make vapes sound scary.

Public health interventions can do far more than banning! The reason it tooks so long to treat vaping as smoking is the far lesser danger of vaping for health (if you put aside the US studies).

This question can be rephrased like this: how can shooting myself in the head be bad for me in a world where shooting myself in the head is impossible to be bad for me? We could cure death and people will still say shooting yourself in the head is the deadliest thing ever.

So therefore, trying to prevent people shooting themselves in the head is not about health.

If nothing can kill you (even shooting yourself), then can anything (including shooting yourself) be dangerous?

I present this puzzle to others, they do the same thing.

Think of it this way, if we had death curing nanobots, does this mean you can survive a nuclear explosion? Will you become immortal?

The nanobots the book was talking about are nanobots that stop the tendency for the body to decay as we age. They are not meant to make us immortal.

Think of them like very advanced prosthetics.

Having the ability for prosthetic arms and legs does not mean that arms and legs (both natural and prosthetics) is impossible to be chopped off. Having heart pacers does not mean that poor diet and low exercise is impossible to cause heart disease.

People with poor health need more medical intervention and earlier than people with good health. The existence of inventions does not change risk factors.

We have a real life example. Oxygen is a very reactive molecule, it is unstable in large amounts and corrodes everything else, yet we need it to survive. Something that is bad for other things is required by us. The reverse is also true. CO2 is harmful for us but good for plants.

Hope that actually clears up your thought process and helps you stop believing in none sense.

Even without die of it, I would still prefer to avoid cancer. And smoking clearly rise the risk to have one.

Also, a cure we may have someday, is just a call to found research, not a real promise. Don't build anything on such.