Shame on us!!

[nev99]

This was originally meant as a response to the thread
Local e-cig bashed by ill informed amateur journalist

but by the time i finished writing it i thought it warranted it's own thread, mainly because while I'm describing one particular incident it is not the only one i have run across. This one i just happened to find most disturbing.

If you have not read the original article but wish to, the link to it is available in the original thread.

And yes it's a long post, but i really think it all need to be said

While this forum, CASAA, or vapers in general cannot control the response of every vaper on the web to an article, the thread of comments to the article (on the site not the forum) is not something i think we should be proud of, or something to strive for.

There was one comment on the article, or more accurately a comment on the comments that did stick with me. Painfully, because it, from what i have observed tends to be true.

"looked into other sites and found that the same emotional response always seems to follow any negative portrayal of this new way to deliver nicotine to people."

I know that there are days and articles that make you want to bash your head into the wall and wail "why are they all sooooooo stupid/ignorant/you pick the word" Or even better imagine one of those Looney Tunes scenes when one character is bashed repeatedly over the head with a mallet till they are driven into the ground and only little birdies flying are seen...

our blood pressure jumps, and a comment is shot off to the article which is often emotional, and comes from the defensive position.

we tend to get embroiled into "silly" debates in these comments over our right to vape. And while there is a time, place and article in need of that defense to vape. This was not one of them. With a few exceptions, a mallet was used to by most to browbeat the 'vaping' opinion on the others, when in this case a more surgical procedure was warranted.

If you distance yourself from the fact that you are a vaper, and that you constantly feel that your right to vape is in danger and that you are compared to those 'horrible' smokers. And lets be honest smoker has become a dirty word... relatives who smoke are already only whispered about in families, very soon they will become He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, children will be shown the family photos and told, 'Ahh yes that is your uncle Jimmy, but he was a smoker... we don't talk about him, and you shouldn't tell anyone about him." and since it's obvious that 'smoker' has become such a bad and degrading word, the obvious next phase would be that only smokers or ex-smokers can use it. Isn't' it a shame the S-word is already used up. To the rest of the world the smoker will become the "fire-bearer". (thought it might be 'he who inhaled smoke" but it uses the word smoke so it would not be politically correct)

BUT, if you distance yourself from all that and look at the article from an objective point, take it apart as you would have a paper in high-school, college or uni. you will realize that except for one small piece of wrong information that was provided in a quote by a kid, and that any non vaper would most likely not even realize was wrong, yes, I am referring to the 'vegetable oil', your right to vape was not endangered, the article did not spurt any of that bull FDA c**p, did not reference any of the negative articles in major papers.. or biased studies we know are out there.

and on the subject of vaping, except for the previously mentioned oil detail it was quite positive and accurate.

"..inhaling vapors from e-cigarettes, as safer, healthier and cheaper than traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes are made up of atomizers, which heat and vaporize a flavored liquid using a battery for power. There is no tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide or ash. “Smokers” inhale flavored, nicotine-infused water vapor."

​

“... they’re healthier than smoking a tobacco pipe or a cigar, which many of us do.”

​

"the product does not contain tobacco and is, therefore, not detrimental towards your health. What you are blowing out by smoking an E-Cig is simply water vapor"
​

The article addressed 2 issues.

1. the underage kids are vaping - no one said nicotine but possible, and the store might be the place where the stuff was purchased, again not stated that sales are made directly to minors but potentially implied

2. parents are concerned over the vaping and that kids may use E-cigs as a gateway to cigarettes – or worse

And I'm sorry but dismissing the concerns of parents as silly and irrelevant will always get their hackles up and have them dig in their heals. Wouldn't you? In other words it will ALWAYS BACKFIRE!!!!

Attacking their parenting skills because they are concerned that their kids might try this? Isn't parenting exactly what they are doing? Questioning the possible access their kids have to nicotine?

Telling the author to get of her cross ....

And downhill it went from there, like an avalanche.

And by God don't try to defend your addiction it's a loosing argument from the start. Those who never smoked will never understand and those that quit (before vaping) will a) hate you because you found an alternative or b) think that you have to/can just like they did (and i refer to both quit and suffer though it) because they did

Here is what i think should have happened and wish did happen

Instead of raising the alarm on the forum and getting everyone up in arms, the op should have e-mailed or PM'd the CASAA either here or on the CASAA site. and also contacted the store, (coodos if they did). CASAA and the store should have worked out a strategic surgical strike.

Besides the store customer comments of which there were a few, the only real answer from the vaping community should have been from the store. Expressing concern that underage kids are vaping. Stating that they very specifically do not sell to underage kids and suggesting that they meet with the school officials and possible parents to try to address the issue.

At the meeting if it ever came to it:

• Maybe propose that vaping equipment and supplies will not be sold to any of the over 18 high school kids (that can be identified) at your store. But warn them that there are no legal limits for sale so that you cannot control what other stores might do.
• Explain to them why e-cigarettes are not a gateway to cigarettes - or worse.
• But also take the opportunity to explain to parents that if their legal aged kids are smoking or experimenting with smoking that this is a much safer alternative.
• Provide information and educate.
• Stress the point that you in no way suggest someone should start using nicotine.. but if they are, this is a healthier alternative.
• Show your wiliness to hear their concerns, and address their issues.

The income the store potentially lost to the over 18 high school crowd would in my opinion be worth the good will such a move would generate. Specially if such refusals to kids were handled correctly, with 'come back when you graduate' nicely worked out. And who knows how many new clients could have been gained from the parents who smoke that they just educated.

Unfortunately what happened is that 'we' jumped down everyone's throat .. and sorry to say got stuck there.

It is hard to determine exactly which of the vapers responses came first.. the one attacking the concern of a parent that the kids are probably experimenting with nicotine regardless what the article stated, or the one just attacking their parenting skills if their kids vape.

I have one thing to say after reading the comments. SHAME on us.

While the owner did express her wish that they had been contacted in advance and that they would have been willing to address the issue, her comment got drowned by our roar of outrage and swept away.. But by that time it was already too late... W.W. V. had already been raging for 2 days.

The vaping community came off as a bully. We haven't educated anyone of anything. The only thing the non vapers reading this article and comments will take out of this little 'debate' is that we are dangerous addicts who do not care about anything but feeding our addiction and thus put their kids in danger. And we are all, paraphrased from one of the comments, pushers of nicotine so that the store and the e-cigarette industry gains new addicts.

And while this comment comes from someone who was i must admit is quite confrontational and occasionally inspired a great wish to bash over the head it sums the 'result' of this quite well:

"I knew next to nothing about "vaping" before, but now I hope the FDA bans the stupid things - they obviously are personality-altering devices."

(in reference to the quite aggressive comments on the site by vapers)

What could have been a golden opportunity to educate and garner some good will in a community, became a debacle that will definitely not help. Like all of us when frustrated you can bet that those commenting from the other side that felt attacked will tell everyone they know about it from their point of view.

And please, before you take away my Right to Vape badge, i am in no way stating that there was not some bias in the article, as this store was the only singled out. Or that the author should not have contacted the store for comments, or known more on the subject. However i don't think even all that warranted the response it got.

 

[turner.curtis]

Take this at face value as I have not read the article mentioned in your dissemination and only read this based on the egregious title 'Shame on us'.

You make some valid points but I would have to say that I think you are living in a fairy tale land if you expect to lay down boundaries for all vapers in how they communicate or when or how they become emotionally charged to answer or respond to some aspect of something that they feel should be a fundamental right to them. Yes it would be nice if everyone of us were level headed and had a debonaire way with words but we do not. In as much I will turn it around and say "Shame on them" it is the onus of the author, researcher, or what ever title they give themselves to provide just and unbiased research else wise the work should be put into the opinion column. In closing I pose one simple question, would you rather that all vapers stop all responses and filter 100% through CASAA or some other organization or would you rather stand on what this country was built and allow the people a voice?

 

[Buckshot]

Could be worse. It could have been....

"looked into other sites and found that the same emotional response always seems to follow any negative portrayal of this new way to deliver nicotine to people....'get a provari'."

...or would you rather stand on what this country was built and allow the people a voice?

+1

 

[turner.curtis]

Having gone and read the article in question, I have to say what a freaking mess of BS. It is clear that the title of the article and the meat of the story should be 'How to abate of age teens from corruption of minor teens'. The is the only sentence that is of any interest in this article:

"This young man said he believes Good Vapes sells only to 18 year olds, but he admits some of those make purchases for younger boys."

Where are the corresponding stories about the local convenience stores or the local stores that sell alcohol providing indirect supplies of cigarettes and alcohol to underage individuals?

 

[orson]

Good post OP, it's generally impossible to gain ground in public opinion by being confrontational.

We (vapers) are a minority, we'll never stop the tide of anti-vaping sentiment and legislation without getting at least some of the non-smoking and non-vaping public on our side.

 

[retired1]

Good post OP, it's generally impossible to gain ground in public opinion by being confrontational.

We (vapers) are a minority, we'll never stop the tide of anti-vaping sentiment and legislation without getting at least some of the non-smoking and non-vaping public on our side.

Excellent point. And in order to do that, we can't jump into the deep end without first thinking about what we're saying. I'm seeing multiple issues, some of which can be fixed, some of which will be very difficult to address.

The first thing that stands out are some of the responses to proposed legislation, both here on ECF and elsewhere. While some responses are well thought out and articulated, I cringe every time I see a the typical knee jerk reaction claiming gloom and doom. These are the type of responses that will be cherry picked by the opposition to bolster their arguments and paint the typical user of electronic cigarettes as an illiterate goon that needs to be saved from their misguided views.

The second thing that stands out is while there are some very good studies out there that show the relative safety of electronic cigarettes, there are an equal amount of studies that try to prove otherwise. Generally, these studies are conducted purposely to skew the data in order to play into the agenda of the agency funding that study (FDA anyone?). There isn't much we can do about those, other than discredit those studies with unbiased studies that are conducted legitimately. This goes back to my first observation where our response to negative publicity should never be "you blathering idiot, do your homework!". They DID do their homework. They just used the wrong book to study! As a community, it's incumbent upon us to point those flawed studies out in a manor that presents the facts without being antagonistic.

Last, but not least, there are a lot of folks out there who are trying to do the right thing when it comes to enlightening individuals to the technology and ingredients used in e-liquids. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to be blatant about our vaping habits and forcing the issue to be addressed.

I think a huge part of this issue comes from the anonymity that comes from using the Internet. People tend to say things on line that they'd never be caught dead saying to someone's face. Unfortunately, this attitude is what's going to bite e-cigarette users in the backside.

 

[DC2]

I believe both approaches have a place in any argument.
Facts and figures will sway some, and righteous indignation will sway some others.

When I made my comments, I saw too much righteous indignation, so I went with logical arguments.
When I see too many logical arguments, facts, or figures, my comments may very well be geared towards righteous indignation.

The thing I wonder about this little community publication is how many read it and didn't say anything, but sided with us.
Because the few that spoke out against us are probably living in some little bubble that only the "elite" on a little blog or forum can justify to themselves.

Just food for additional thought...

 

[boshans]

Well it is hard to stay rational when there are posters on that article like "wilson" and "ellen raff", who are basically ANTZ and fear mongering idiots. Many people replied to their comments stating facts, and telling them to go look at other facts, but they obvioulsy didn't do that, because in their little world they are right and nothing else can be true. Someone made a long and great comment, and they didn't respond to that one probably because they couldn't use any of their fear mongering bull.... to reply. They are the ones that think ecigs are an epidemic amongst kids and that kids everywhere are using ecigs and then are going to go smoke crack or something. When in reality the article was about a FEW kids in some small little town. It's people like this who threaten our choice to vape, and obviously people are going to get emotional about it.

 

[DC2]

Well it is hard to stay rational when there are posters on that article like "wilson" and "ellen raff", who are basically ANTZ and fear mongering idiots. Many people replied to their comments stating facts, and telling them to go look at other facts, but they obvioulsy didn't do that, because in their little world they are right and nothing else can be true. Someone made a long and great comment, and they didn't respond to that one probably because they couldn't use any of their fear mongering bull.... to reply. They are the ones that think ecigs are an epidemic amongst kids and that kids everywhere are using ecigs and then are going to go smoke crack or something. When in reality the article was about a FEW kids in some small little town. It's people like this who threaten our choice to vape, and obviously people are going to get emotional about it.

I was under the impression that they were protecting their "turf" and a blogger they have supported for some time.
The fact that they were also ANTZ just made it even more contentious.

 

[nev99]

lol i knew i wanted to be here today ... was away for the day so I'll try to catch up..

...
You make some valid points but I would have to say that I think you are living in a fairy tale land if you expect to lay down boundaries for all vapers in how they communicate or when or how they become emotionally charged to answer or respond to some aspect of something that they feel should be a fundamental right to them.
[...]
In closing I pose one simple question, would you rather that all vapers stop all responses and filter 100% through CASAA or some other organization or would you rather stand on what this country was built and allow the people a voice?

no fairy tale land, i can only dream... and i did start with:

"While this forum, CASAA, or vapers in general cannot control the response of every vaper on the web to an article, the thread of comments to the article (on the site not the forum) is not something i think we should be proud of, or something to strive for."

i don't think we can, and i don't think we 'should'. I am a firm believer in First Amendment rights, and am only appealing to the members of this forum, when you run across an article that bothers you , ticks you off... or inspires what ever degree off "ARGHHHHHHHHH" as a reaction to try to stop, take a vape (or two, or even three), have a sip of coffee or what ever you drink, even walk across the room, if that is what it takes, before blasting off a response.

as to the second, God no, I'm the last person, anyone who knows me can tell you (while they are dying on the floor laughing at the thought), who would cooperate with someone trying to 'filter' 100% of what i can say. But i also understand that individual battles are what wins the war. That confrontational, aggressive, accusatory tactics have the effect of your audience tuning you out, or responding in kind. You are then perceives as no better then the guy standing on the milk crate in Central Park raving about who knows what. Which then attracts another just as ravingly crazy guy on his own milk crate and circus ensues. And consequently your argument, regardless how valid it might be is ignored by those you were trying to reach.

Yes it would be nice if everyone of us were level headed and had a debonaire way with words but we do not. In as much I will turn it around and say "Shame on them" it is the onus of the author, researcher, or what ever title they give themselves to provide just and unbiased research else wise the work should be put into the opinion column.

Ohh please, let me quote you now: "you are living in a fairy tale land if you" think that articles written by professional journalists for major media outlets on other subjects are providing a 'just and unbiased research' when presenting a subject.

And, just think, who said she did not. You cannot google the e-cigarette and not stumble upon at least one mention of the blasted FDA "study" on the first page. and yet she obviously did enough research to not include the alarm in her story that the underage kids are not only vaping, but by vaping inhaling toxic levels of antifreeze.

as to the potential bias i mentioned, if the kids did not mention other places she might not have been aware of them. Unless you are a smoker/vaper and looking for them it is not something that would 'stay' with you, that you have seen. Could she have found them? Yes, off course but she might not have been aware that she need to look for them or that they are sold at anything other than specialty stores. The ones often sold around are packaged in the 'charger' that looks like a pack, why would the difference even click in the mind of a non smoker who isn't even paying attention to this item. My mother is a non smoker, not only would she not recognize one if it jumped on the sales counter and danced a jig for her, it would not even register with her that she had seen them somewhere. This is a small community news blog, the person writing is not introduced as a professional journalist but as someone who has a 'passion for writing' and i still believe she met the onus placed upon her by the 'position' of the author of this article.

This is not a PRO and AGAINST vaping article/blog post. It's a 'Did you know about this new thing that your underage kids might be, but probably should not be, using' article.

Having gone and read the article in question, I have to say what a freaking mess of BS. It is clear that the title of the article and the meat of the story should be 'How to abate of age teens from corruption of minor teens'. The is the only sentence that is of any interest in this article:

"This young man said he believes Good Vapes sells only to 18 year olds, but he admits some of those make purchases for younger boys."

Actualy i would disagree. The article is about what it states it is. local teens drawn to e-cig with the emphasis on:
“I know kids will find things anyway, but if we know about it, we can make it a little more difficult for them.”

This is what this whole post is about, raising awareness of parents towards something new on the block their kids might be getting into.

Where are the corresponding stories about the local convenience stores or the local stores that sell alcohol providing indirect supplies of cigarettes and alcohol to underage individuals?

and here is where your comment goes off the rails. You 'forgot' to:

"distance yourself from the fact that you are a vaper, and that you constantly feel that your right to vape is in danger"

Those stories have been done, and those conversations have been had. Parents are aware of those issues. This is new, and something they may not have ever heard off.

And lets be honest, how many non smoking parents would even be able to recognize a charging ego as an e-cig. or a box like mod that looks like a external portable drive. I can see myself successfully arguing as a teen that it's a friends usb drive that I'm trying to fix because it's not working. (the last part just in case they want me to access the file directory to prove it) And my parents are both highly intelligent and educated people, they just happen to be non smokers and are not aware of the e-cigarette.

And this is exactly what i'm talking about, that last bit was argumentative, defensive and not necessary to make your point.

This is an equivalent of a ... "But Johnny and Tommy are just as bad... why are you talking to (just) me now"
Because I spoke to Johnny and Tommy yesterday and now it's your turn.

i wish who ever named this did not call it an e-cigarette, but we are stuck with that name and this makes disassociation from smoking hard to achieve. By comparing vaping to consumption of cigarettes by minors, your comment links and equalizes the two instead of breaking the link.

 

[nev99]

Could be worse. It could have been....

"looked into other sites and found that the same emotional response always seems to follow any negative portrayal of this new way to deliver nicotine to people....'get a provari'."

lol i can see it

Government study shows potential danger from vapor produced by e-cigarettes
Bla… bla… bla….

Commentator 1:​

E-cigarettes should not be allowed to be used in smoke free zones, it would be best if they are just banned outrights. Addiction to nicotine is dangerous, and should not be supported.

Vaper 1:

Studies done have proved that there is nothing dangerous in the exhaled vapor of an e-cigarette. I’m a 50 year old who has smoked for 35 years before I found the e-cigarette. It has helped me quit smoking in just a few days after many unsuccessful attempts in the past. I’m grateful to Mr. X from Vape Shop for helping me change my life and for providing the necessary information on the e-cigarette that enabled me to stop smoking. The purchase of my ego was the best investment I have ever done… I can now live knowing that I do not inhale over 4000 harmful chemicals that come from smoking cigarettes.

Commentator 1:

HOW can you say that, this Study proves that ….

Vaper 2:

Hey man, the ego is a piece of crap, you should have gone with a mod. Better vaping experience … I can sit here and vape on a Provari all day and the battery does not die.. A VV is a must.

Vaper 1:

The Provari is a bit pricy for me… but I’m getting a Vamo next week.. it has VW also .. I can really kick up the vaping with it.. I saw it can create CLOUDS of vapor, can’t wait to go to the pub with buddies and see who can get the biggest cloud going.

Commentator 1:

It is the vapor that is dangerous; and I just read the study by the FDA that proves…

Vaper 2:

Oh man, don’t get a Vamo, nothing beats the Provari, the service is awesome, and it’s totally guaranteed. Ohh and with the IGO-L on it, it’s really a sweet mod.

Commentator 1:

This is dangerous. Nicotine is a dangerous addiction … :whimper: Is anyone even listening…. :whimper:

Note: the negative statements above about the ego are not the views of the author of this sketch and please note that the entirely of this post was written while vaping on an ego 900mah.

 

[nev99]

or would you rather stand on what this country was built and allow the people a voice?

love this statement, every time it's brought up.

This country was built on the courage and determination of the brave, the laboring backs and the vision of a better future of our forefathers. It is built on the ideals of those yearning to be free of tyranny and oppression.

But it has also been built on conquest, bloodshed, war, a near extermination of a people, an enslavement of another. It has repeatedly though it's existence denied a voice and the rights of one group or another under various pretexts.

And yes i will stand on what this country was built, but i will also be aware that the ground I'm standing on can quickly turn to quicksand. I will encourage the people around me to find and use their voice, but will acknowledged the fact that the other side has a voice too. and knows how to use it. That it has 3 decades of anti smoking and anti tobacco rhetoric on it's side. And is unprepared and somewhat unwilling to acknowledge the distinction.

I will acknowledge that there are more of them, they are better organized, better funded, and by the powers that be considered the politically correct stance.


So my goal is not to be an earthquake that will trigger the volcanic reaction that will vaporize me. But to be like water; steady, silent, often not seen underground, and slowly shape the environment around me one battle at a time.

 

[nev99]

Good post OP, it's generally impossible to gain ground in public opinion by being confrontational.

We (vapers) are a minority, we'll never stop the tide of anti-vaping sentiment and legislation without getting at least some of the non-smoking and non-vaping public on our side.

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.

 

[Lessifer]

While I agree with some of the OP's intentions and do think that many of these "comment wars" devolve into name calling and virtual raspberries, I felt the need to comment on that article as well.

I didn't attack her "facts" about vaping, that's not really what the article was about, and it's not where my issue with it lay.

In our new world of online media, soundbytes, youtube clips, twitter feeds, etc. perception is the key in "journalism"(quotes added because this was a blogger, not a professional journalist). Had the title of the article and the top picture on the page not singled out a particular vape shop and suggested(no she didn't actually say it herself, though her quoted sources implied it) that they target and sell PV's to minors, I don't think the same outrage would have ensued.

While it's true that a reader of average intelligence could have read the entire article and deciphered that Good Vapes doesn't actually sell to minors, the Average Reader(not the same as a reader with average intelligence) may not be paying that close attention. The author cited one source that says that they don't sell to minors, and two sources that imply that they do. This was bad "reporting" plain and simple.

 

[nev99]

Well it is hard to stay rational when there are posters on that article like "wilson" and "ellen raff", who are basically ANTZ and fear mongering idiots. Many people replied to their comments stating facts, and telling them to go look at other facts, but they obvioulsy didn't do that, because in their little world they are right and nothing else can be true. Someone made a long and great comment, and they didn't respond to that one probably because they couldn't use any of their fear mongering bull.... to reply. They are the ones that think ecigs are an epidemic amongst kids and that kids everywhere are using ecigs and then are going to go smoke crack or something. When in reality the article was about a FEW kids in some small little town. It's people like this who threaten our choice to vape, and obviously people are going to get emotional about it.

Yeah, see, that's just it, they did not seem to have started as ANTZ, but it does look as that is where they ended. Big time. By the time the few rational arguments came into play it was too late. The lines have been drawn, and the battle had been raging. And i agree with the:

I was under the impression that they were protecting their "turf" and a blogger they have supported for some time.
...

but also it took a reread and a realization that for some reason the comments, for me at least, where displayed in the "best" order, and not Oldest to Newest. Once I got the chronological order sorted, my original oh my god how can they say that (for W! and ellen) turned into ohhh i see how we degenerated to this

Ellen's first comment is in response to the article and not another post:

Perhaps one of the least offensive ways to be addicted to nicotine -- but nicotine is still an dangerous addiction, and still expensive over a lifetime. I don't buy the idea that kids are by-passing the opportunity for nicotine.

Now, there is nothing challenging, really wrong or incorrect about her original post. So let's take it apart.

she states this is the least offensive way to be a nic addict - meaning if you really want to/have to do it, she finds this new way an improvement.

I agree. So do I, or I'd still be smoking.

And, yeah she is not giving a ringing endorsement to supporting addiction but neither is she yelling "OFF with their Heads"

but nicotine is still a dangerous addiction - now here is where challenge is seen by us. `dangerous`, we see that word or combination of words and tend to get defensive.

Most people equate smoking and nicotine. Because until now, in most cases it has been the same thing. So yeah pointing out the difference they might not be aware off is necessary, but doing it in the - "show me your evidence that it is dangerous" manner, a tone used in multiple replies to her statement is counterproductive.

And lets be honest, Nicotine is addictive, and every addiction caries a certain level of danger with it. My coffee addiction can be dangerous too.

so yes the wording is unnecessarily strong, and more appropriate to 'Smoking is... then to 'Nicotine is..., but it is not entirely inaccurate. Yes there are studies proving beneficial sides of nicotine, but there are also studies showing negative effects.

and still expensive over a lifetime - i concur!!!!! Don't you?

I don't buy the idea that kids are by-passing the opportunity for nicotine. - Yeah neither do I. I started smoking at that age. This does not imply that the store sells it, just that, same as if an opportunity for a beer or cigarettes presented itself to kids that age, if there was an opportunity for nic juice, a number of those kids are not by-passing it.


Yeah her statement is not a ringing endorsement for our habits, but I'm not seeing any ANTZ in this statement, except directed toward (potentially her) kids.

For the first part of her statement there are 10-20-100's of better answers then

So tell us, Ellen Raff, how exactly is nicotine a "dangerous addiction"? Cite your credible medical sources. We'll wait.

Dangerious ? Mind to show facts of this statement Id love to see them.

...yeah you get the drift...

and the gauntlet is thrown, the challenge issued ...

Essentially an I dare you ...

As to her concern that kids might be using nicotine regardless of what the article stated this was the response

..If you are concerned about your kids becoming addicted, perhaps it is time for you to PARENT your children. If you do, they will not become addicts.

this was unfortunately the general response to that concern raised by the article. Variations on:

Isn't it time that parents start parenting? I mean blame yourselves if you loose control over your kids and place the blame where it truly lies.

They are your kids, you took the time to make them now take the time to raise them right! They are not my responsibility,....I succesfully raised my kid now you raise yours! Parenting is the answer here not limiting what responsible adults can or cannot buy! Shame on you! Instead of writing this here why are you not spending time with your kids?

You DO realize that you just insulter my parents, your parents and all parents off smokers and vapers, by insinuating that if they had been better parents WE would not have become addicts.

I'm sorry, but my parents, grandparents, and family in general was very involved in my upbringing and that of my siblings. From foreign language playgroups for kids, library story times, to dance, music, ballet classes, world travel, every opportunity to broaden our horizons that could be taken was. My parents took every opportunity to be involved, and to involve us, to teach, guide... So i take great exception to the insinuation that they were bad parents because i smoke/vape. My two siblings do not, and in fact would not touch the stuff with a ten foot pole, and yet we were raised by the same parents.

What this is leading to is - wouldn't a response with this attitude have been better:

Actually Ellen, nicotine is no more dangerous as an addiction then caffeine, nor is it more addictive. The dangerous part of the nicotine addiction is the smoking it previously necessitated to satisfy the addiction, which this eliminates. There are numerous studies and reports showing beneficial characteristics of nicotine, as well as potential therapeutic ones for treatments for Parkinson, :name a few more:. You can see from this study [link] and this [link] the effects of nicotine how in on it's own it is not any more dangerous then coffee, the use of cell phones or many other things that we consume or use every day.

And while argument can be made that just as coffee, nicotine does not need to be restricted in use, since unlike alcohol consumption of it does not lead to impeded judgement, and in fact effects of use are similar to coffee, vendors like the Vape Shop have voluntarily adopted an 18+ policy for the sale of all equipment and supplies of e-cigarette use, not just nicotine. It is agreed upon among vendors and users of e-cigarettes that that is the responsible thing to do even tho there is no government regulation in place.

 

[ClippinWings]

To the OP,

I read the original thread, the original article, it's comments and the owners rebuttal and its comments.

You are off-base.

We don't need less people speaking out, we need more... when lies are told(or implied) about vaping... we need to shout them down.

Yes, there may be more tactful ways of doing it... but when ANTZ get involved, it can quickly get ugly.

Kudos to the Angry commentors... because of them and ONLY because of them, the Owner of the shop was able to have their point of view heard.

 

[nev99]

To the OP,

I read the original thread, the original article, it's comments and the owners rebuttal and its comments.

You are off-base.

Entirely and on all points? or just some? please clarify.

Is it on my opening point that this is not something that i would proudly point to and say - look at how well we rallied around a problem, how well we argued/presented the point, but more something i hope no one ever finds.

Or is it the point i raised how often the responses are not thought out but a just angry, defensive, aggressive lashing out over somethign we perceive as wrong.

Or is it that i pointed out that we tend to live in this 'defensive' position, perceive any comment that is not an obvious ringing endorsement of vaping as a threat, and feel a constant need to attack anything we perceive as critical so that we can defend it.

It must be my observation that dismissing parental concerns over issues is not a good idea or tactic on gaining support. Or replying to their concern over their kids having access to a nicotine product, that this is due to their bad parenting.

In general that being a rude, loud bully is not effective or productive and is in fact quite the opposite. (besides being embarrassing)

We don't need less people speaking out, we need more... when lies are told(or implied) about vaping... we need to shout them down.

there were NO lies told about vaping. quite the contrary, it was described as a safer, no risk, not detrimental to you health alternative to smoking, one that does not produce second hand smoke and whose whole byproduct is water vapor.

So what and who, are you shouting down?

as for the in general statement of we need to shout them down.!!!

just do the math, there are 314 million people in the USA, of that 19% or 59 million are smokers. Of those numbers it is estimated that 12-18 million have TRIED an e-cigarette. If we are generous (to ourselves) and conclude that of the 12-18 million that have tried 80% have become steady vaping users that makes 9.5-14.4 million vapers in the USA. Lets again be optimistic and say 14 million.

deducting the 'leftover' smokers from the general population, under the assumption that they would not oppose vaping... that still leaves vapers at a small 5% of the population. So for every 5 vapers shouting there are potentially 95 non smokers shouting back. Who do you think is louder under such tactics?

plus shouting someone down to convey a message is a lot like terrorism. As soon as those tactics are employed, what ever message you might have tried to convey, people are batting down the hatches, going on defensive and your message is dismissed.

Yes, there may be more tactful ways of doing it... but when ANTZ get involved, it can quickly get ugly.

yeah, there are, so why not use them? since they are also less self destructive as well.

There is no reason for it to get ugly even if the ANTZ get involved, at least not from our side, let them shout and rant and be seen as raving maniacs, why does it have to be us?

Plus in a situation like this, someone who is not an ANTZ at the beginning, might become one by the end, as they resist being bullied in the direction you are pushing them in. So instead of making a friend and supporter, or at least leaving them as neutral, you create an 'enemy' and an opponent.

Kudos to the Angry commentors... because of them and ONLY because of them, the Owner of the shop was able to have their point of view heard.

And this is blatantly false. The owner of the shop had the same opportunity as anyone to make a comment and have their point heard at any point. It's not like they were blocked from the comments section or their comments erased. And because of the angry commentators and all the internet shouting, accusations and acrimony, when they did make a statement it was drowned out in the noise of shouts flying. Who are you giving kudos to? did not one of those people think that maybe giving the shop a heads up would be a good idea? think that "Hey, maybe the guys at the vape shop need to know about this so they can respond" the shop found about the article from the editor when the problem had already exploded.


So please, explain to me how an angry mob mentality helps our cause in any way? Because i sincerely do not see that kind of attitude help sway public opinion or benefit us in any way. And this has historically proven to be an unsuccessful approach, except maybe for the French Revolution. But do not forget they outnumbered the group in power 30 to 1 and thus succeeded on sheer numbers alone.

 

[nev99]

While I agree with some of the OP's intentions and do think that many of these "comment wars" devolve into name calling and virtual raspberries, I felt the need to comment on that article as well.

I didn't attack her "facts" about vaping, that's not really what the article was about, and it's not where my issue with it lay.

In our new world of online media, soundbytes, youtube clips, twitter feeds, etc. perception is the key in "journalism"(quotes added because this was a blogger, not a professional journalist). Had the title of the article and the top picture on the page not singled out a particular vape shop and suggested(no she didn't actually say it herself, though her quoted sources implied it) that they target and sell PV's to minors, I don't think the same outrage would have ensued.

While it's true that a reader of average intelligence could have read the entire article and deciphered that Good Vapes doesn't actually sell to minors, the Average Reader(not the same as a reader with average intelligence) may not be paying that close attention. The author cited one source that says that they don't sell to minors, and two sources that imply that they do. This was bad "reporting" plain and simple.

No objections, none whatsoever to people commenting. I commented for the exact same reason as well. And had we had a 100 or a thousand comments (preferably without name calling) of that nature, pointing and saying - hey call you on it - not playing fair. I would have applauded the result.

It's what a friend of mine tells her teens: "Can you just say what you want to say to me with out all that drama. I'm not listening to the drama."

but i do have a but

this IS (as far as i can find) the only vape shop in Lake Highlands, a 'district'/area in northern Dallas, so kinda hard to not single it out when writing on the topic in connection to Lake Highlands area.

Also, would we have felt better if she had singled out some gas station or convenience store as the culprit. Why? Because it's just some anonymous gas station that sells a brand we generally dislike? It's still electronic cigarettes, and any implication of sales to minors puts our 'collective' interests at risk. The parents do not care if this or that shop sold to the kids, they feel primarily threatened by the product, and that the kids obtained it at all.

 

[Lessifer]

No objections, none whatsoever to people commenting. I commented for the exact same reason as well. And had we had a 100 or a thousand comments (preferably without name calling) of that nature, pointing and saying - hey call you on it - not playing fair. I would have applauded the result.

It's what a friend of mine tells her teens: "Can you just say what you want to say to me with out all that drama. I'm not listening to the drama."

but i do have a but

this IS (as far as i can find) the only vape shop in Lake Highlands, a 'district'/area in northern Dallas, so kinda hard to not single it out when writing on the topic in connection to Lake Highlands area.

Also, would we have felt better if she had singled out some gas station or convenience store as the culprit. Why? Because it's just some anonymous gas station that sells a brand we generally dislike? It's still electronic cigarettes, and any implication of sales to minors puts our 'collective' interests at risk. The parents do not care if this or that shop sold to the kids, they feel primarily threatened by the product, and that the kids obtained it at all.

In my opinion, to be completely fair and not sling implied accusations at this particular shop, the story could have been written without mentioning any shops or gas stations specifically. Also, the piece could have been written without the implication that someone IS in fact selling to minors since there was no proof that anyone actually was. A simple "while I found no evidence that e-cigs are being sold to minors, some minors are getting their hands on them anyway" would have sufficed. The way the title was worded, the images were used, and the piece was written all seem to intentionally mislead you to believe that the shop is selling to minors.

On another note, vapers who are active in this community tend to be passionate. We have found something that most of us feel has saved our lives in a not so small way. Anyone who is a smoker that has tried to quit, lost a loved one to a smoking related illness, or has had health problems of their own due to smoking knows how bad cigarettes really are and how hard it is to quit them. So yes, when someone appears to be attacking this thing that we love, with invalid arguments, misinformation, bad reporting, or just plain bias, we get defensive.

 

[nev99]

In my opinion, to be completely fair and not sling implied accusations at this particular shop, the story could have been written without mentioning any shops or gas stations specifically. Also, the piece could have been written without the implication that someone IS in fact selling to minors since there was no proof that anyone actually was. A simple "while I found no evidence that e-cigs are being sold to minors, some minors are getting their hands on them anyway" would have sufficed. The way the title was worded, the images were used, and the piece was written all seem to intentionally mislead you to believe that the shop is selling to minors.

On another note, vapers who are active in this community tend to be passionate. We have found something that most of us feel has saved our lives in a not so small way. Anyone who is a smoker that has tried to quit, lost a loved one to a smoking related illness, or has had health problems of their own due to smoking knows how bad cigarettes really are and how hard it is to quit them. So yes, when someone appears to be attacking this thing that we love, with invalid arguments, misinformation, bad reporting, or just plain bias, we get defensive.

In agreement that it could have been, will even put a stronger argument that it should have been. And had it been a more 'serious' publication than a neighborhood news-blog than it definitely should have been.

and this

"while I found no evidence that e-cigs are being sold to minors, some minors are getting their hands on them anyway" would have sufficed.

was exactly the type of argument i presented, that there should have been a clarification of some kind at the end of the article to the effect that "while teens are definitely acquiring this, vape shop has a 18+ policy that is strictly enforced... "
but haven't you ever said or written something with one intention in mind, not realizing beforehand that when viewed from a different outlook it might be perceived differently. Though that you had clarified your position when in fact you left it unclear.

On topics we know are hot and controversial most of us will do a lot of tightrope walking, carefully choosing our words, a lot of qualifiers, to minimize the potential that even the most innocuous thing can be taken as offense. And sometimes when we are not aware of the controversy and are not as careful with our words, and do not weigh and measure and look at a post from every angle for any possible offense, we can without realizing land in a bit of a jam.

Look at it like this:
Kids are suddenly popping up with these new cool low alcoholic fruit shakes. They seem to be coming from this new fruit shake store that just opened. You look around and find out that while these drinks do not contain any of the adverse effects of alcohol consumption like intoxication or liver failure from abuse, there are still some aspects of this that are not ideal and suitable for under age consumption.

So you write an article about it, and warn parents about the new phenomenon, and mention that while the fruit-shake store does not seem to sell to minors, some second hand account people you spoke to who have never been there seem to think the store is maybe where the stuff comes from...

Now how many outraged wine connoisseurs and, world sommeliers do you think the author of such a news post on a dinky little neighborhood news blog was really expecting?

As an experiment this afternoon while i was out i took the article and gave it independently to 5 people, non smokers, 4 of whom have kids to read. and then picked their brains for impressions. 4 of them when asked about the underage sale said that they understood that the 2 references to purchases by students referred to purchases done by older students, like the other mention, since even they are not allowed to have it on school ground, so could get into trouble. Only once i pointed out how it could be seen differently did they say , ahh i see what you mean, now that you mention it, yeah you could read it like this.... Coincidentally the only one of the five that did say, yeah that was left a bit unclear off the bat is the one friend that i have been ranting and raving to for the last month about the stupid government, potential problems, and bla bla... the others don't even know i switched nor had i ever talked to them about it.

In other words people who are in a constant defensive position, and approach every situation from the position of 'poor me, i'm being persecuted' will inevitably be viewing every comment, look, opinion through this filter, and find fault even where none was intended.

and instead of us telling the author to "Climb down off the cross..the third world needs the lumber."
maybe we should "Climb down off the sacrificial pyre we think we are standing on, since we need the wood for our new PR campaign placards"