It's not a false dichotomy, the article is very clearly about whether the harm reduction benefits (which clearly exist) outweigh the public health risks (which also clearly exist).
And, of course, there's nuance to that question. It's not like our only options are to keep the status quo or ban vapes entirely. One of the ideas presented in the article is to ban flavored vapes, since that's one of the main points of attraction to non-smokers (especially children), and non-flavored (or tobacco-flavored) vapes will still be viable alternative to smokers.
Problem with vapes is they are too inexpensive and you don't have to light a new one every now and then so there are people who are vaping almost without pause all day long.
I know a smoker who ended up increasing his own addiction because of that and went back to cigarettes, smoking more than he used to.
And, of course, there's nuance to that question. It's not like our only options are to keep the status quo or ban vapes entirely. One of the ideas presented in the article is to ban flavored vapes, since that's one of the main points of attraction to non-smokers (especially children), and non-flavored (or tobacco-flavored) vapes will still be viable alternative to smokers.