@Kent C , I hear where you're coming from, but look at it this way: what would you consider
Louise Ross to be? By her own admission, prior to the advent of the Summit, she was extremely skeptical about e-cigs. Her career has been in helping smokers to stop smoking. She's on the "front line". I've met her, she's lovely and in no way a zealot about
anything. I simply cannot put her in the "ANTZ senior concept".
There's a big difference between:
"we connect with smokers in Leicester
who want to get help to stop smoking."
...and someone who wants the gov't to impose restrictions, bans, taxes against people who may or may not want to stop smoking or vaping.
IOW, your using Louise as an example is a bit of a "reddish brine dyed kipper".
It should be apparent to anyone, she is not an ANTZ. Stanton Glantz is not in the business of 'helping those who want to stop smoking' out of some platonic goal. What Louise does is moral. What Glantz does is not.
The people of whom I speak are those who were anti-smoking and some even anti nicotine (although that division is more defined today than before), who rather than 'wanting to help people to stop smoking', wanted to force people to stop smoking or tax them enough to pay for their (ANTZ) wages and programs under the guise of 'children's' health' - in the US - the CHiP program.
Within that group - there were and are, people along a gradient scale of TC to THR. Some have moved quite far toward THR, some have not. Dr. Siegel, for example, used to be considered as Stanton Glantz's 'right hand man' or some such designation. Currently, he has done some stellar work, although there are some notables in the THR faction that are either not as impressed, or still hold him accountable for his past TC actions.
The link on that (Dr. S) has been posted here and as a smokers rights advocate, I knew of some of the 'THR" people before I came to ECF. I know - because I've been a long time sponsor at CATO institute - that Brad Radu and Greg Conley have had a 'relationship' with Cato on certain issues that were 'smoker's rights' oriented while still being part of the anti-cigarette movement - hence my "...but understand the THR's orientation can be advantageous to us now." comment above.
I also know that certain THR advocates were staunch enemies of the work Cato (esp. Robert Levi and others) had done on exposing the second-hand smoke hoax and the deviant way that the EPA (aided by ANTZ of all stripes) got through their second-hand smoke policies that affected many Americans on false pretenses and junk science - which was proven in Federal Court, but to no avail.
In other words, I think the ANTZ category is poorly defined, creates false us-and-them dichotomies, and rules out the human elements that are involved amongst those who wish to see smoking reduced, and instead casts participants as slaves to a particular agenda.
I disagree. I think it defines exactly the mindset of those who use our money against us, either through MSA or direct taxes and regulations, while demonizing us at the same time. While some THR want that reduced against ecigs, they still want it upheld against smokers. Hence they are still ATZ's and are in fact, slaves to that agenda. A truly 'human element' would include allowing people to do anything that doesn't harm others (even though it may harm oneself). IF someone wants to 'stop harming oneself' - then we need more Louises and less Glantzs. But only IF.
And, I think holding that separation can be beneficial - I think we are seeing that in some of the ANTZ - as seen yesterday with Goniewicz's presentation at the workshop. Here's a guy that has done studies on 2nd and 3rd! hand vapor, demonized ecigs and attempted to prove harm with junk science or at least have done so that the media has spun it in a way that has been harmful to the vaping community. But now - perhaps
because we HAVE the 'us vs. them' view and have shown them to not only be wrong in their studies but also wrong in their orientation - to where yesterday his words were the most encouragingly pro-vaping. And, I think as a result of his comments, a few others also agreed to the harm reduction aspect of ecigs. See Bill's OP thread in Regulation on the FDA workshop. Something he and most all of us considered would be a 'whitewash' for ANTZ.
I have to think that 'our guys' studies and comments/blogs, etc. against them, (the us vs. them idiom) was instrumental. Esp. when our guys make so much more sense and point out that problems of the ANTZ studies, where for some ANTZ continuing to hold those positions/views appears not just irrational but derisively so.
So.... while you:
really, really don't see that this is helpful to anyone.
..... I find it can be quite helpful as well as the truth.