[To view a broken link, paste the entire thing into your web browser's address line. The extra line will not hurt.]
http://www.bloomberg.com/
video/do-e-cigarettes-encourage-people-to-smoke-tobacco-0zYBWNuGT~6hpdhwZGOhSA.html
IMO the above link is a must-see for all vapers - the Bloomberg female anchor does a fantastic job of presenting the point of view that parents have a right to protect their small children from even knowing that there is such a thing as smoking.
This is a position taken by Glantz as well, c.f.:
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/
smokefree-movies-webinar-available-viewing
and:
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/
hollywood-should-follow-cvss-lead-and-stop-pushing-cigarettes-kids
[Fortunately, the Motion Picture Assn of America has not yet agreed to require that any movie carry a rating of "R" if it's (a) not about a historical figure who actually smoked, such as FDR; and (b) shows smoking in any way other than as a socially-unacceptable addiction. E.g. Casablanca and Citizen Kane.]
To his credit, Jason Healy - president/founder of Blu, now owned by Lorillard (makers of Newports) - does a very good job of playng defense in this Bloomberg video, and presenting a pretty good case. The phrase "renormalizing smoking" comes up (he uses it).
My own takeaways from this fascinating exchange are twofold: first, we live in a society that's so thoroughly traumatized by the history of smoking that anything that looks like smoking is seen as a threat to public health, because it poses a clear, present, and immediate danger to children (and that includes images on a movie screen).
Yes, we know that many folks think that way from the regulatory climate and/or the media.
But to see this woman speak so poignantly and passionately in defeinse what she believes is her right to raise her children in a smoke-free world (and I think she really does believe this), gives us some fascinating insight into the attitudes of nonsmoker/nonvapers.
She doesn't make the point that society has an interest in ensuring that no child under 18 should ever be exposed to images of smoking. But of course, many people really do believe that ... even if they've never had children, and have no connection with the Tobacco Control industry. (These beliefs are a part of the world in which we live, so we might as well get used to them. We don't have to like them.)
It's also interesting to observe that vaping was treated as smoking for purposes of the entire interview, by everyone. The idea that vaping need not involve nicotine, and could be a completely different activity than smoking was clearly not part of this discussion.
I'm no psychologist. But it seems to me that it's probably not going to be effective to throw a wall full of scientific publications at the female anchor who genuinely doesn't want her small children to know that such a thing as "smoking" (or vaping) even exists. (How about openly vaping in the presence of her and her children - perhaps at a public city council meeting, even if it's legal to do so? Hmm. Not likely to change her mind. Or her vote.)
Some of you may regard folks who think like her as "the enemy." We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I can't find it in myself to view her in an adversarial light. (Maybe that's because I'm a wimp.) Overprotective parents who wish the entire world and its norms and/or regulations to revolve around what they see as their task of childrearing will always be a part of humanity. (Perhaps one or more of your own parents or guardians might have been described like that.)
As a practical matter, I think we'd all be more effective advocates for the cause of vaping if we sought to understand her point of view. (Which is little different from past attitudes in many societies towards any number of forbidden behaviors, of course. For example, the terms "dark meat" and "light meat" were apparently coined to describe different portions of a fowl's anatomy, because it was considered inappropriate to use the word "breast" in front of children, and particularlly at the dinner table.)
Again: I'm not suggesting that we agree with her. Or even necessarily sympathize with the overheated "alpha parents" of the world, who would probably like to see us all go to jail for so much as even thinking about chewing gum on a public street. (Even if it doesn't contain nicotine ;-)
But hating her isn't going to help us much. IMO the phrase "know thy opposition," refers to more than mere talking points.
http://www.bloomberg.com/
video/do-e-cigarettes-encourage-people-to-smoke-tobacco-0zYBWNuGT~6hpdhwZGOhSA.html
IMO the above link is a must-see for all vapers - the Bloomberg female anchor does a fantastic job of presenting the point of view that parents have a right to protect their small children from even knowing that there is such a thing as smoking.
This is a position taken by Glantz as well, c.f.:
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/
smokefree-movies-webinar-available-viewing
and:
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/
hollywood-should-follow-cvss-lead-and-stop-pushing-cigarettes-kids
[Fortunately, the Motion Picture Assn of America has not yet agreed to require that any movie carry a rating of "R" if it's (a) not about a historical figure who actually smoked, such as FDR; and (b) shows smoking in any way other than as a socially-unacceptable addiction. E.g. Casablanca and Citizen Kane.]
To his credit, Jason Healy - president/founder of Blu, now owned by Lorillard (makers of Newports) - does a very good job of playng defense in this Bloomberg video, and presenting a pretty good case. The phrase "renormalizing smoking" comes up (he uses it).
My own takeaways from this fascinating exchange are twofold: first, we live in a society that's so thoroughly traumatized by the history of smoking that anything that looks like smoking is seen as a threat to public health, because it poses a clear, present, and immediate danger to children (and that includes images on a movie screen).
Yes, we know that many folks think that way from the regulatory climate and/or the media.
But to see this woman speak so poignantly and passionately in defeinse what she believes is her right to raise her children in a smoke-free world (and I think she really does believe this), gives us some fascinating insight into the attitudes of nonsmoker/nonvapers.
She doesn't make the point that society has an interest in ensuring that no child under 18 should ever be exposed to images of smoking. But of course, many people really do believe that ... even if they've never had children, and have no connection with the Tobacco Control industry. (These beliefs are a part of the world in which we live, so we might as well get used to them. We don't have to like them.)
It's also interesting to observe that vaping was treated as smoking for purposes of the entire interview, by everyone. The idea that vaping need not involve nicotine, and could be a completely different activity than smoking was clearly not part of this discussion.
I'm no psychologist. But it seems to me that it's probably not going to be effective to throw a wall full of scientific publications at the female anchor who genuinely doesn't want her small children to know that such a thing as "smoking" (or vaping) even exists. (How about openly vaping in the presence of her and her children - perhaps at a public city council meeting, even if it's legal to do so? Hmm. Not likely to change her mind. Or her vote.)
Some of you may regard folks who think like her as "the enemy." We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I can't find it in myself to view her in an adversarial light. (Maybe that's because I'm a wimp.) Overprotective parents who wish the entire world and its norms and/or regulations to revolve around what they see as their task of childrearing will always be a part of humanity. (Perhaps one or more of your own parents or guardians might have been described like that.)
As a practical matter, I think we'd all be more effective advocates for the cause of vaping if we sought to understand her point of view. (Which is little different from past attitudes in many societies towards any number of forbidden behaviors, of course. For example, the terms "dark meat" and "light meat" were apparently coined to describe different portions of a fowl's anatomy, because it was considered inappropriate to use the word "breast" in front of children, and particularlly at the dinner table.)
Again: I'm not suggesting that we agree with her. Or even necessarily sympathize with the overheated "alpha parents" of the world, who would probably like to see us all go to jail for so much as even thinking about chewing gum on a public street. (Even if it doesn't contain nicotine ;-)
But hating her isn't going to help us much. IMO the phrase "know thy opposition," refers to more than mere talking points.
Last edited:
