"Those," would be e-cigarettes. Gillespie's argue's that a move to ban e-cigs puts the lie to the entire anti-smoking movement. If it ever was mostly about public health it's now mostly about telling people how to live their lives. If there is no apparent health risk the user or those around him or her, why push for a ban? The answer would seem to be that it reminds them of cigarette smoking. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it reminds me of the idiotic zero tolerance on anything that reminds public schools of real guns.
And yes, this does save lives; it's safer to smoke e-cigs than actual cigarettes. But it's not about that anymore. It's about telling people what they can and can't do. Here's what I believe is the ulterior motive; smokers have been effectively turned into pariahs. The anti-smoking crowd can't tolerate something that looks like the thing they've all but banished. I suspect they fear that the re-normalizing of anything that looks like real smoking might re-normalize real cigarettes.
By this logic, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg shouldn't ban large sodas, he should ban the containers in which they're sold. After all, you don't want people getting used to seeing such large volumes of anything, even water! Liberals consider conservatives intrusive in their personal lives because of one issue; abortion. Yet they manage not to notice an entire raft of invasions into their lives by their own side.