Shame on us!!

[Lessifer]

I would completely agree with you, if the piece didn't start with "Electronic cigarettes are all the rage with Lake Highlands teens, and it’s a habit that’s got some parents mad at an LH shop selling to students." (emphasis mine)

 

[Stubby]

It reminds me of what my grandfather used to say. That the Chinese didn't need to do anything, to conquer Europe, except to start walking.

There are just more of them. And i would prefer not to be ground to dust under an ANTZ stampede.

That simply is not true. There are many more of us then them. The true anti-tobacco/nicotine zealots are actually very few in number. Many of then are simply paid lobbyist with a few dedicated minions tagging along. They have lots of money at their disposal (and are always grubbing for more) but the actual numbers are quite small. They have been at this a long time so they have the connections. They have the ear of policy makers and the money to back it up, but they don't have the numbers. They also don't have the science on their side as the science clearly supports tobacco harm reduction.

Their problem is that the ANTZ live in a house of cards. There is no question there biggest fear is that THR will become common knowledge. If that happens it all falls down. One lie after another will be exposed. A large grass roots based group of advocates for THR has to be there worst nightmare.

A lot of people posting appear to be new. When I started advocating for THR nearly four years ago there where a lot fewer of us then there are now. There has been tremendous growth and education going on. Politicians will turn if they see the votes.

 

[turner.curtis]

Okay you guys write too much... I did not read all of the replies but I did scan through them and being fair I did say that in the OP he had made some good points and I will not deny that. Yes it would be better if we were more of a collective but you are always going to have the "bad apple" that steps out and says or does something they should not. With that said it is kind of hard to in one hand tell a mass of people with radically differing backgrounds to get deeply involved and in the other to not get too emotionally invested in something they potentially see as being their "saving grace".

Believe me I do not have my blinders on and agree to a degree but in my defense I am simply trying to point out that it would be much more difficult to get every vaper on the same "plain" in respect to answering and the perceived demeanor in which they answer therefore some damage control may have to occur. Although in the long run if the net gain is positive and has traction then why internally fight or roadblock when the collective can spend that energy and capital on the larger cause.

 

[nev99]

I would completely agree with you, if the piece didn't start with "Electronic cigarettes are all the rage with Lake Highlands teens, and it’s a habit that’s got some parents mad at an LH shop selling to students." (emphasis mine)

Touché, except the article does point out that students as a group does include legal aged teens.

and we can bounce it back and forth like this till the end of off time...

So yes, as I have from the beginning i acknowledge that a certain level of bias has been observed, whether towards the particular store, or if one takes into consideration it's the only vape store in the area, the industry in general with the implication that goods may have been sold to miners.

This observed bias can be chalked up to purposeful and potentially even malicious. Or to a poor choice of words, and an unfortunate lack of conclusion by the author that no underage sale has been confirmed.

Considering the lack of other negative propaganda information about vaping in the article, that we are all aware is out there, i'm personally leaning towards the second and if i want to be super 'straight' i would say a 20/80 ratio 20% - some purpose might have been involved, in the: it might be sold to them as stated but i can't prove it so i'll just not deny. 80% - when we hear words like students, teens and so on we tend to associate with underage kids. This article does infer that some of the seniors are 18+. And the author would have been correct in saying teens and students buying, thinking of those 18+, without necessarily realizing that 'total' clarity was missing.

Determination of the level of culpability by the author i will leave to each reader, as we each come from a different stance we will each have a different take on it.

---

But the purpose of the thread was not really a dissection of each nuance of the article as much the observation of the type of responses this and other articles tend to get, even when they are not totally junk science quoting ones.
It is about raising awareness, at least with those that we can, that maybe not every response has to be made with a canon. And that often by such tactics we achieve exactly the opposite reaction.

That emotional, angry, unproductive arguments only hurt the 'collective' good.

It is to see if we can open a dialog about how as a group we can work towards achieving the goals we want. And while i do not believe we could or should strive towards the "We are the Borg, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated" mentality towards all vapers, nor that we can or should in any way control them or their right to speak or protest, i do believe that some kind of unity will help.

Employees of companies are not just tossed out to give comments on any number of subjects, PR and Marketing campaigns are designed and implemented with purpose and strategy.

So where are ours? With about 5-10million vapers in the US alone, it's impossible that there are not a few PR specialists, marketing specialists, that we cannot get together and come up with a 'plan' better than this "come out swinging at anything that moves wrong" strategy.
And this is not counting the brilliant minds vaping in other countries.

I understand being passionate about a subject, i have been passionate about a few over the years, written and commented on them.
But there is passion and logic, and then there is just knee jerk emotion.

And i can tell you that logic will almost always win. There are sections of the forum that deal with how to answer questions about vaping.. for different situations, but where and how do we tell people, this is why this knee jerk reaction is the "wrong" thing to do. this is how that argument can logically be taken apart. Here is what you want to come back with that cannot so easily be refuted.

 

[DC2]

Employees of companies are not just tossed out to give comments on any number of subjects, PR and Marketing campaigns are designed and implemented with purpose and strategy.

So where are ours?

The closest thing we have to that is probably the CASAA Facebook group.

With about 5-10million vapers in the US alone, it's impossible that there are not a few PR specialists, marketing specialists, that we cannot get together and come up with a 'plan' better than this "come out swinging at anything that moves wrong" strategy.

a) Join CASAA: Become a CASAA Member
b) Attend a CASAA member meeting
c) Bring your concerns and ideas to their attention

Unfortunately, I doubt very highly that CASAA currently has the resources to organize or run any kind of PR campaign.
I'm pretty sure they are drastically overworked just trying to fight bans all over the country.

There are dozens, maybe even hundreds of us that have been looking for solutions for years now.
If you have fresh new ideas I can guarantee you that everybody has open ears.

But ideas may not be enough, because what it really takes is time and resources.

 

[nev99]

That simply is not true. There are many more of us then them. The true anti-tobacco/nicotine zealots are actually very few in number. Many of then are simply paid lobbyist with a few dedicated minions tagging along. They have lots of money at their disposal (and are always grubbing for more) but the actual numbers are quite small. They have been at this a long time so they have the connections. They have the ear of policy makers and the money to back it up, but they don't have the numbers. They also don't have the science on their side as the science clearly supports tobacco harm reduction.

Their problem is that the ANTZ live in a house of cards. There is no question there biggest fear is that THR will become common knowledge. If that happens it all falls down. One lie after another will be exposed. A large grass roots based group of advocates for THR has to be there worst nightmare.

A lot of people posting appear to be new. When I started advocating for THR nearly four years ago there where a lot fewer of us then there are now. There has been tremendous growth and education going on. Politicians will turn if they see the votes.

Well it look like i have stumbled in a similar way that the write of the article had, the implied meaning made sense to ME, but did not to others.

There are just more of them. And i would prefer not to be ground to dust under an ANTZ stampede.

the more of them did not refer to just 'card carrying' members of the anti-tobacco/nicotine groups. Although i do think you are mistaken in your assessment of their numbers, i was referring to the stampeded of all those they do/will get moving.

First just by stating that they have lots of money, and can pay lobbyist tells me that that money comes from somewhere. So there is obviously some support for them out there.

Second they have the ear of the policy makers and the money again to back it up.

They are what is generally seen as a healthier and politically correct choice.

My point is that after 30+ years of tobacco/smoking is bad for you campaigns, that we cannot refute are true, they have a much easier argument then we do. The general non smoking population already leans their way.

And the argument is that while this is harm reduction, it is not harm elimination, it is not proven to be 100% safe. Yes i KNOW that this is ridiculous and nothing is 100% safe. Their argument is, that the addicts are looking for any way to continue their nasty smoking habit just in a slightly different way so they can bypass the hard won bans on smoking so many non smokers have welcomed.
Yeah this are better for us, but the general public still should not have to be exposed to even the miniscule danger we put them in.
(and i'll stop, as i seem to be making better arguments for them they i've ever seen them make, and no junk science was involved)

And now the house is not made of cards any more, we have skipped glass too...

And the general public is conditioned to listen to any tobacco is bad argument...

To me and you vaping means we quit smoking, tell that to a non smoker and you inevitably get a confused look and a "but you are still smoking, you are just using this new thing to do it."

UNTIL we can convince the general non smoking public, you know the one that supported the implementation of all the non smoking zones to start with, that this is NOT smoking, that nicotine in off-itself is not more addictive or dangerous then caffeine (mind you, caffeine is not a classified substance but ok.. ), prove to them that they are not inhaling even a miniscule amount of anything, when standing next to us, let alone anything harmful, (never mind that you inhale more harmful chemicals crossing a busy street then walking through exhaled vapor) the scale of public perception is tipped against us. And the rallying cry of the ANTZ can get that stampede moving.

When smoking was banned indoors most of my friends and I groaned. My sisters comment was that finally she can come back from the club or concert and not have to wash her hair before bed, not have to bag her clothes before they stink up her room, or have her contacts bother her while she is there...

Tell her, that we are bypassing the nonsmoking zone regulation by introducing this new electronic thing, have her see the vapor that looks like smoke, and while she has never been a zealot, has not campaigned or contributed to the anti tobacco lobby in the past, now that she has experienced the possibility of non smoking cafe's and restaurants as a norm, and specially now that she has a kid, she would move her, otherwise uninterested about what we do, a*s to stop it.

So no they might not be able to outright ban it in the US like they did in some other countries, but they can make it expensive and complicated, and put so many regulations in place that only big tobacco will be able to compete and take over, and then do i even want to know what is in my liquid?

 

[Stubby]

First just by stating that they have lots of money, and can pay lobbyist tells me that that money comes from somewhere. So there is obviously some support for them out there.

The money is not coming from large groups of people but from large corporations. You are confusing the issue by implying the ANTZ have a lot of support from the general population but they don't. Most people simply don't care as it doesn't effect them. That doesn't mean they actually support what the ANTZ are doing or are in any way active on the issue. There are many times more activist on our side that are supporting THR. We really do have overwhelming numbers.

My point is that after 30+ years of tobacco/smoking is bad for you campaigns, that we cannot refute are true, they have a much easier argument then we do. The general non smoking population already leans their way.

They actually have a much harder argument then we do. First off the tobacco is bad for you campaign is built on a lie (just one of many). Tobacco has very low risk as the studies on smokeless tobacco have shown so we certainly can refute that lie. Of course smoking is bad for your health but for those of us involved with THR there is no reason to go there. What I have found almost without fail is that when you sit down and talk to people and explain the concepts of THR it is quite easy for people to grasp. I am not talking about the hard core ANTZ, but normal rational people.

Perhaps you are letting the screeching chalk board voices of the vocal antis delude you into thinking that is what normal people think, but that is simply not true.

 

[DC2]

First just by stating that they have lots of money, and can pay lobbyist tells me that that money comes from somewhere. So there is obviously some support for them out there.

Yes, Big Pharma is a HUGE supporter and sugar-daddy.

My point is that after 30+ years of tobacco/smoking is bad for you campaigns, that we cannot refute are true, they have a much easier argument then we do.

That's really the problem right there.

Smoking is bad for you.
Tobacco is not.

 

[DC2]

Perhaps you are letting the screeching chalk board voices of the vocal antis delude you into thinking that is what normal people think, but that is simply not true.

When it comes to the general public, you will find brainwashed ANTZ-supporters there as well, although they may not be card-carrying members.
They were indoctrinated in those kinds of quit-smoking groups that refer to nicotine as the Nicodemon.

 

[Mudfinger]

OP:

The article was poorly written, and contained factual errors.

The journalist and editor, terms I'm using loosely here, got their just desserts, delivered by a large contingent of articulate and passionate commentators. I enjoyed the testimonials from long-term smokers with health problems the most; that's some pretty compelling anecdotal evidence for the merit of personal vaporizers that dispense nicotine solutions.

Personally, I'm fine with regulations restricting minors' access to personal vaporizers and smoke juice. Minors should not be legally allowed to play with this stuff. I would support a similar restriction on their access to caffeine, as well.

All that said, allowing Puritans to go unchecked has never gone well, and while the alternative may be messy, to suggest that people hold their tongues in this context is counterproductive in my view. Yes, join CASAA, and yes, do your best to keep the argument within the bounds of reason. But, if some incompetent excuse for a journalist publishes an article like the one we're all talking about, filled to the rim with oblique attacks on our liberties and personhood, and then attempts to defend it with yet more oblique attacks on those who disagree with the premises of the article...I say let them have it.

Which is pretty much what happened, as I see it.

 

[Stubby]

When it comes to the general public, you will find brainwashed ANTZ-supporters there as well, although they may not be card-carrying members.
They were indoctrinated in those kinds of quit-smoking groups that refer to nicotine as the Nicodemon.

When people are educated about THR almost without fail they support the idea. I am not seeing the fanaticism you imply among the population at large. I live in a very liberal city and one would think that it would be a hotbed for ground swell support for ANTZ activism, but it's not. If anything, there is more tolerance for tobacco/nicotine users then there has been in years past.

 

[DC2]

When people are educated about THR almost without fail they support the idea. I am not seeing the fanaticism you imply among the population at large. I live in a very liberal city and one would think that it would be a hotbed for ground swell support for ANTZ activism, but it's not. If anything, there is more tolerance for tobacco/nicotine users then there has been in years past.

I don't see it in the population at large either.
I'm just saying, they have a little bit more support than we might think.

 

[nev99]

First just by stating that they have lots of money, and can pay lobbyist tells me that that money comes from somewhere. So there is obviously some support for them out there.

The money is not coming from large groups of people but from large corporations. You are confusing the issue by implying the ANTZ have a lot of support from the general population but they don't. Most people simply don't care as it doesn't effect them. That doesn't mean they actually support what the ANTZ are doing or are in any way active on the issue. There are many times more activist on our side that are supporting THR. We really do have overwhelming numbers.

My point is that after 30+ years of tobacco/smoking is bad for you campaigns, that we cannot refute are true, they have a much easier argument then we do. The general non smoking population already leans their way.

They actually have a much harder argument then we do. First off the tobacco is bad for you campaign is built on a lie (just one of many). Tobacco has very low risk as the studies on smokeless tobacco have shown so we certainly can refute that lie. Of course smoking is bad for your health but for those of us involved with THR there is no reason to go there. What I have found almost without fail is that when you sit down and talk to people and explain the concepts of THR it is quite easy for people to grasp. I am not talking about the hard core ANTZ, but normal rational people.

Perhaps you are letting the screeching chalk board voices of the vocal antis delude you into thinking that is what normal people think, but that is simply not true.

Yes, granted, majority of the money is coming from large corporations and not individuals, but i will disagree that Most people simply don't care as it doesn't effect them. From what i have observed and experienced, they just might not be shouting at the top of their lungs all the time, or be active on the issue, but do react when 'confronted' with the situation. It ties in with What I have found almost without fail is that when you sit down and talk to people and explain the concepts of THR it is quite easy for people to grasp. Those that are not aware, and most are not aware beyond the basics of the general 'smoking is bad' because as you stated it does not affect them, are predominantly concerned with how this affects them when faced with vaping (the only THR i have used). Safer than smoking when it comes to the concerns about second hand smoke they have, does not in every situation come off as a ringing endorsement. And this is the exact point, sitting down and explaining the concepts does work, and has worked, but it's hard for them to hear me/us if i have to speak through all the shouting or do it by shouting myself when they say something that i know is not true but they think/believe is.

My point is that after 30+ years of tobacco/smoking is bad for you campaigns, that we cannot refute are true, they have a much easier argument then we do. The general non smoking population already leans their way.

My posts already tend to be 6miles long, so i do attempt to skip clarifications of parts that i think would be obvious in the 'meaning'.

Maybe for the issue of tobacco/smoking i should not have.
The original statement, before i truncated it read:
My point is that after 30+ years of smoking is bad for you campaigns, that we cannot refute are true, and since tobacco use is most commonly associated with smoking in most peoples minds there is little or no distinction between the two in terms of terminology, they have a much easier argument then we do. The general non smoking population already leans their way.

So yes, the tobacco is bad is based on a lie, but it's a unfortunately a wildly believed one. It tends to fall into the 'but everybody knows' category of arguments.

Perhaps you are letting the screeching chalk board voices of the vocal antis delude you into thinking that is what normal people think, but that is simply not true.

Actually i'm not, i'm acknowledging their existence and not dismissing their potential to screech loud enough to drown out the reasonable argument.
But for me it has been quite the opposite, the 'easiest' conversation was with someone i would not call a zealot, but that has spent a good portion of their life working in public health and preventative medicine which has obviously included non-smoking education. The most illogical arguments, misinformation and bad conclusions came from the muggles. By this i in no way imply that had i been dealing with a zealot this would have worked.