I've been giving some thought to our attitude about non-smokers taking up the use of PVs.
A while back, a non-smoker posted a question in the New Member's Forum. Several people jumped in discouraging the writer from taking up vaping. A few were gentle, most were not.
I suspect that, in one of two ways, fear was the motivating factor.
1. We buy into the myth that any form of nicotine, regardless of its relative safety, is a danger because it will inevitably lead the user into smoking tobacco. Therefore, we fear for the health and safety of the non-smoking writer.
2. Anyone identifying him- or herself as a non-smoker might be a 'troll' sent in by anti-smoking groups to catch us in trying to entice some poor, unsuspecting waif into taking up the evils of tobacco smoking. Therefore, we fear for our own safety--the product that is our lifesaver could disappear.
Let's talk about that.
Nicotine as a Gateway:
a) The evidence that exists all points in the opposite direction. Nicotine gum, lozenges, and patches are all available OTC in the US. The availability of these products has not created a new generation of addicted smokers. It has helped some people break away from smoking.
b) The "public health experts" in charge of tobacco control convinced the government to put misleading labels on less-risky smokeless tobacco (ST) products because they feared people would use those products first and then move on to smoking. What was accomplished was that some smokers who might have switched to a less-risky source of nicotine did not switch. Furthermore, since ST was painted to be just as dangerous as smoking, some ST users switched to cigarettes. Nice job, Uncle Sam!
c) After a while, most PV users find that tobacco cigarettes start to taste nasty. If someone who requires nicotine is getting enough from their PV, why would they choose to switch to something that is reviled by society, is more expensive, creates a fire hazard, and tastes bad?
d) If someone doesn't require nicotine, why would they want to switch from yummy-tasting 0-nic PV to something that's addictive and deadly?
Proper behavior toward "trolls":
a) "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Say that someone who is already prejudiced against us drops in for a visit. If we begin treating that person disrepectfully, we perpetuate his/her poor opinion of us. Wouldn't it be a hoot if a troll did drop by, was treated respectfully, looked around our site, learned a few things, and changed his or her mind?
b) What if your assumption about the writer's motives is wrong? I visited a quit-smoking forum where they jumped to the conclusion that I was there to sell my product (I'm not a supplier) and told me that there was a "special place in hell" for people like me. You can imagine how I felt. Ironically it was the first (and only) time in all the months I have been an ex-smoker that the thought popped into my head, "Damn! I need a cigarette." I didn't light up, but still...
I highly recommend that everyone read the sticky, "Effective Advocacy".
A while back, a non-smoker posted a question in the New Member's Forum. Several people jumped in discouraging the writer from taking up vaping. A few were gentle, most were not.
I suspect that, in one of two ways, fear was the motivating factor.
1. We buy into the myth that any form of nicotine, regardless of its relative safety, is a danger because it will inevitably lead the user into smoking tobacco. Therefore, we fear for the health and safety of the non-smoking writer.
2. Anyone identifying him- or herself as a non-smoker might be a 'troll' sent in by anti-smoking groups to catch us in trying to entice some poor, unsuspecting waif into taking up the evils of tobacco smoking. Therefore, we fear for our own safety--the product that is our lifesaver could disappear.
Let's talk about that.
Nicotine as a Gateway:
a) The evidence that exists all points in the opposite direction. Nicotine gum, lozenges, and patches are all available OTC in the US. The availability of these products has not created a new generation of addicted smokers. It has helped some people break away from smoking.
b) The "public health experts" in charge of tobacco control convinced the government to put misleading labels on less-risky smokeless tobacco (ST) products because they feared people would use those products first and then move on to smoking. What was accomplished was that some smokers who might have switched to a less-risky source of nicotine did not switch. Furthermore, since ST was painted to be just as dangerous as smoking, some ST users switched to cigarettes. Nice job, Uncle Sam!
c) After a while, most PV users find that tobacco cigarettes start to taste nasty. If someone who requires nicotine is getting enough from their PV, why would they choose to switch to something that is reviled by society, is more expensive, creates a fire hazard, and tastes bad?
d) If someone doesn't require nicotine, why would they want to switch from yummy-tasting 0-nic PV to something that's addictive and deadly?
Proper behavior toward "trolls":
a) "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Say that someone who is already prejudiced against us drops in for a visit. If we begin treating that person disrepectfully, we perpetuate his/her poor opinion of us. Wouldn't it be a hoot if a troll did drop by, was treated respectfully, looked around our site, learned a few things, and changed his or her mind?
b) What if your assumption about the writer's motives is wrong? I visited a quit-smoking forum where they jumped to the conclusion that I was there to sell my product (I'm not a supplier) and told me that there was a "special place in hell" for people like me. You can imagine how I felt. Ironically it was the first (and only) time in all the months I have been an ex-smoker that the thought popped into my head, "Damn! I need a cigarette." I didn't light up, but still...
I highly recommend that everyone read the sticky, "Effective Advocacy".
Last edited: