Alternate thread title: Educating the ANTZ believers among us
TL;DR version via bolded items
So yesterday, I had opportunity to thoroughly educate a relative who previously has provided me with um literature (i.e. news / magazine) articles which contained vaping scare du jour. Perhaps I could've done this type of educating earlier, but had always given far shorter version or simple rebuttal to whatever was latest concern (really scare tactic) brought up in the piece they shared.
I find educating on vaping to be at a couple different levels. One level is what I'd call basic, or what I think we all hope will work where you explain known ingredients of eLiquid, identify currently known scientific data about eCigs (i.e. 95% less harmful than smoking) and briefly touch upon how regulations of the FDA kind are countering what is otherwise a viable public health remedy to a perceived long term problem. Most of the time, I find this level works for vast majority of people and can be explained in under 5 minutes. But I also find that if person is convinced of ANTZ rhetoric that the educating either barely works or possibly doesn't work at all other than to provide relatively known facts to people who think a vaper might have no idea about what they are using.
Another level of vape education, the one I used yesterday takes a lot longer to explain, and is met with degree of dialogue because I believe everyone (myself included) upon first hearing it, has questions and/or grows in curiosity during the explanation by how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Like yesterday, in this longer version, I chose to start with statement along lines of, "back around 1950, the anti-smoking movement started to find it's legs and created a playbook by which to change the dynamic on tobacco use, particularly smoking, by doing thus and so." Where thus and so was me taking at least an hour to walk through the politics from that date forward, with me knowing I was aiming toward explaining how MSA came about, and how ANTZ essentially has influenced national dialogue to such a fever pitch that it needs to employ scare tactics against eCigs to maintain it's sense of power/control.
Thing is, I never even used the word "ANTZ" in my entire explanation, but use it here to help paraphrase what many in vape culture are familiar with and thus, don't need the 2 hour, long winded explanation of what I said. I, of course touched upon Big Tobacco, which had me going back way before 1950, and touched upon Big Pharma, China (original invention and current stuff) and even Big Government. Plus touched on black market (for combustibles), taxation issues, and as much science as I felt was warranted. I didn't bring up THR, nor inevitable black market for vaping, nor a few other things that I'm sure myself and others think is quite relevant to such a discourse.
But ultimately, I was aiming to explain how specific scare tactics like anti-freeze, formaldehyde and diacetyl are things that politically aware vapers are well aware of, have discussed/debated, and have identified as scare tactics from what essentially started circa 1950, and is same strategy by anti-smoking types that continues to this very day.
I found it fruitful discussion. I believe very helpful and at very least would have this person I was speaking with think twice before sharing their latest concern (scare tactic) with me as if I had never considered that aspect of vaping. It was yet another one of many moments since I've started vaping where I distinctly felt like the tide was turning against the ANTZ influence that I continue to find permeates world culture. I rejoice!
Really do wish it wouldn't take hours to walk through all that stuff and yet, really happy with how this type of educating changes the dynamic in a significant, meaningful way. With every vaper this type of educating can help all of us, in whatever way that works for each of us. A small word of advice: encourage the person you are communicating with to investigate, on their own, the items you are bringing up, so they can see for themselves that what you are conveying has basis in fact, and that this is, rather significant, propaganda war occurring at this stage of the game.
Need to give shout out to @DC2 as it was piece he often cites regarding Rampant Anti-Smoking playbook that really is place to start when serious educating is occurring.
TL;DR version via bolded items
So yesterday, I had opportunity to thoroughly educate a relative who previously has provided me with um literature (i.e. news / magazine) articles which contained vaping scare du jour. Perhaps I could've done this type of educating earlier, but had always given far shorter version or simple rebuttal to whatever was latest concern (really scare tactic) brought up in the piece they shared.
I find educating on vaping to be at a couple different levels. One level is what I'd call basic, or what I think we all hope will work where you explain known ingredients of eLiquid, identify currently known scientific data about eCigs (i.e. 95% less harmful than smoking) and briefly touch upon how regulations of the FDA kind are countering what is otherwise a viable public health remedy to a perceived long term problem. Most of the time, I find this level works for vast majority of people and can be explained in under 5 minutes. But I also find that if person is convinced of ANTZ rhetoric that the educating either barely works or possibly doesn't work at all other than to provide relatively known facts to people who think a vaper might have no idea about what they are using.
Another level of vape education, the one I used yesterday takes a lot longer to explain, and is met with degree of dialogue because I believe everyone (myself included) upon first hearing it, has questions and/or grows in curiosity during the explanation by how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Like yesterday, in this longer version, I chose to start with statement along lines of, "back around 1950, the anti-smoking movement started to find it's legs and created a playbook by which to change the dynamic on tobacco use, particularly smoking, by doing thus and so." Where thus and so was me taking at least an hour to walk through the politics from that date forward, with me knowing I was aiming toward explaining how MSA came about, and how ANTZ essentially has influenced national dialogue to such a fever pitch that it needs to employ scare tactics against eCigs to maintain it's sense of power/control.
Thing is, I never even used the word "ANTZ" in my entire explanation, but use it here to help paraphrase what many in vape culture are familiar with and thus, don't need the 2 hour, long winded explanation of what I said. I, of course touched upon Big Tobacco, which had me going back way before 1950, and touched upon Big Pharma, China (original invention and current stuff) and even Big Government. Plus touched on black market (for combustibles), taxation issues, and as much science as I felt was warranted. I didn't bring up THR, nor inevitable black market for vaping, nor a few other things that I'm sure myself and others think is quite relevant to such a discourse.
But ultimately, I was aiming to explain how specific scare tactics like anti-freeze, formaldehyde and diacetyl are things that politically aware vapers are well aware of, have discussed/debated, and have identified as scare tactics from what essentially started circa 1950, and is same strategy by anti-smoking types that continues to this very day.
I found it fruitful discussion. I believe very helpful and at very least would have this person I was speaking with think twice before sharing their latest concern (scare tactic) with me as if I had never considered that aspect of vaping. It was yet another one of many moments since I've started vaping where I distinctly felt like the tide was turning against the ANTZ influence that I continue to find permeates world culture. I rejoice!
Really do wish it wouldn't take hours to walk through all that stuff and yet, really happy with how this type of educating changes the dynamic in a significant, meaningful way. With every vaper this type of educating can help all of us, in whatever way that works for each of us. A small word of advice: encourage the person you are communicating with to investigate, on their own, the items you are bringing up, so they can see for themselves that what you are conveying has basis in fact, and that this is, rather significant, propaganda war occurring at this stage of the game.
Need to give shout out to @DC2 as it was piece he often cites regarding Rampant Anti-Smoking playbook that really is place to start when serious educating is occurring.
*
