You sure did misunderstand my statement. I've been advocating wide use of ecigs, in public, for over two years now. And making comments widely and often, as well as directly writing journalists and legislators and so-called health groups .... .
Yes, it is
solely the frequent spammers hawking their products in comment sections of news articles that I was referring to as harming our cause. Are you not aware of the frequency with which those commenting solely in order to educate and to refute the widely disseminated misinformation we see all the time in the media are written off and loudly decried as "shills for the industry"? This is unfortunately only increased and encouraged by those who
are actually making comments with their own financial gain as their motivator.
Here is but one, but particularly egregious, example - by an author of an article about ecigs doing a followup piece after receiving many genuine and impassioned comments by ecig consumers, including CASAA board members, that she TOOK for cynical industry promotion:
"I would also argue that its time for the e-cigarette industry to cease its end-run around current rules by hiring and/or encouraging lobbyists and consumers to trumpet health claims that they themselves are not allowed to make.
It brings them dangerously close to the bad behavior displayed by Big Tobacco over the yearsand if theyre anything like me, thats not an association theyll relish."
Emily's Post: Electronic cigarettes, Marty McFly, and internet detective-ry - Isthmus | The Daily Page
You don't think that the barrage of thinly disguised spam replete with links to commercial sites that we do in fact see in article after article contributes to statements like the above?
