I think I have a brilliant idea, but not the resources, please read...

Status
Not open for further replies.

swampergene

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 9, 2014
161
394
Slatington, PA, USA
Hey everyone. I've been reading more stories about bans being voted into place, the threats of making this and that outright illegal, etc....as most of you have. Two things keep flowing through my feeble brain, (1) how long we, as smokers, have put up with the shame and ridicule and (2) the fight we are going through to be able to make what is in some cases a choice that will save our lives.

This got me thinking...we need to place the shame that we have been given onto those that are attempting to deny us this gift. And I think I have a good way to do it, that, if implemented correctly and soon enough, may even help slow down a little bit of this madness.

Of course...it could be a dumb idea too. lol

What I'm thinking is, we need a permanent, public record of ALL politicians, scientists, public figures, etc who have been voting and/or vocal opponents of vaping. A web site devoted to nothing more than recording and listing these names for years to come, so that when someone or their friend or loved one is diagnosed with lung cancer, they will see exactly who stood in the way of ending the era of tobacco.

I think it could be so simple. And the effectiveness could come from not putting the emphasis on vaping, but putting it on "these people contributed to the legacy of lung cancer". a "Wall of Shame". Something like "politiciansforlungcancer" dotcom. Or "thesepeoplepromotecancer" dotcom...you get the idea :)


Then as votes are cast, their names are emblazoned on a web site tying them to furthering the agony of lung cancer. Of course we'd have to be a little cautious in our wording, like we can't say "they GAVE you lung cancer", but creative, suggestive writing could be damning for a politician to have their name attached to. And by making it a permanent record...moving forward some might think twice about their very NAME having a place on this page.

Anyone have some input on this, or want to get it going? Ideally a domain name paid for 10 years or whatever the maximum allowed is. Dollarwise, this whole thing would be CHEAP. VERY CHEAP.

Thoughts?
 

drksideken

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 21, 2014
130
188
Syracuse, IN, USA
You would absolutely have to be careful. some of those folks used to be lawyers. I can't imagine this would be too hard to do. The hard part would be getting traffic to the site. Within the site, you'd want to throw in everything they voted against, everybody they were known to have dealings with as far as the Big bacco and pharma companies were concerned...or whether or not they did it out of plain ignorance. You would definitely have to stick to the public record and keep it as impersonal as possible.
 

swampergene

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 9, 2014
161
394
Slatington, PA, USA
You would absolutely have to be careful. some of those folks used to be lawyers. I can't imagine this would be too hard to do. The hard part would be getting traffic to the site. Within the site, you'd want to throw in everything they voted against, everybody they were known to have dealings with as far as the Big bacco and pharma companies were concerned...or whether or not they did it out of plain ignorance. You would definitely have to stick to the public record and keep it as impersonal as possible.


Absolutely. However, their votes and all that other good stuff are a matter of public record, this would just be showing certain votes and certain ties. Smoke and mirrors to fight...smoke and mirrors. No libel or slander, it could not say they CAUSED cancer, it could say their actions MAY CONTIBUTE TO cancer, especially if proper studies are linked to. Again, playing their game. I think this could have some effect if it did become "known", which thanks to social media would be fairly easy to make happen, because I think most of them are seeing this as a quick nuisance issue that will blow over.

It goes along the lines of something that shuts people up almost every time I've argued the issue...I show them a picture of my EVOD next to a cigarette, tell them that as a smoker I WILL use one or the other right now, which would YOU tell me to use? It almost always ends the discussion right there, cuz they know if they answer "cigarette" they are promoting tobacco use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread