We clearly have the evidence, and the numbers, but I don't see how that will work in our favor when other side has lots of money and ability to have lies seem like truth.
How is this different than the smoking fight? People here might wish to argue that smoking is worse for you, horrible for you, blah blah blah. If really up for that debate, I'm glad to enter into it, to show anyone what we are up against. I'll be coming from side as 'not as bad as you have been lead to believe,' and you get to come from side of, 'only so much propaganda I will share with you before I tire of your reluctance to accept "facts" and are therefore not worth discussing this with.' For, if I call you out on ANY of your so called facts, you'll resort to what CDC or AHA or some other anti-tobacco propaganda entity has lead you to believe is 100% accurate, and EVEN THEN, I will want to continue the debate / discussion. For EVEN THEN, I see the methodology and actual science as highly debatable.
To not see this as very relevant to eCig fight is IMO, to not be seeing the eCig fight accurately. To the degree there are (significant) differences, depends only on who one is interacting with at a given time, but not on the principles at work. If a lie can be told and then not defended easily by science, but instead is deemed, "not worthy of debate," then how is the side opposing that supposed to overcome the issue in say the next 3 to 12 months?
I truly believe our side needs to engage in deceptive tactics. Hopefully in a strategic way, but once lying is on the table, it will confuse a whole bunch of people that would otherwise have been supporters. I get that. I don't like to lie at all, even a little bit, but when it comes to a propaganda war and where lying is clearly on the table (and has been for 50 or so years), then it seems like the truth teller has 2 choices: engage in same tactic in hopes that reasonable people that wish to hang around for the long battle will stop/pause on such tactics; or not engage in the battle at all, which to some fellow vapers may show up as apathetic. But thus far the good doers of
vaping (glad to name names if need be) are delivering a political
vaping community that is constantly under attack and by THEIR OWN ACCOUNT it is getting worse. And we are to be the side that only plays by rules of fairness and honesty.
How's that working out for us?