This is what anti-THR networking looks like (and a bit more on ACS)

Yesterday, the CASAA leadership had the enormous displeasure to listen to a webcast about state and local regulation of e-cigarettes, hosted by the Tobacco Control Network (we listened so you did not have to – you’re welcome).

Actually we almost did not get to listen to it: every one of us was bounced off the call except one of us who registered using a non-CASAA affiliation.  We are assuming that was totally a matter of coincidence and technical difficulty.  We certainly hope it was, because not letting us attend a CDC-sponsored public call would certainly be a no-no.  However, if it was intentional, it would not be out of character for the ANTZ, who consistently try to keep anyone who does not agree with them from even observing their meetings.  Also, the (lack of) ethics of such a move are not much different from using CDC funding to engage in what is basically an effort to lobby for state and local regulation; that is explicitly forbidden by law, but this CDC-funded webcast was definitely doing just that.

The reaction to this by CASAA was kind of interesting in itself.  The one of us (CVP) who has been dealing with ANTZ activism against THR for more than a decade (indeed, for more than a decade before the term “ANTZ” was even coined by CASAA) found it to be rather routine.  Others, who had come to THR only after e-cigarettes enabled them to quit smoking, offered quite a few comments that we will not repeat here (out of concern for the chiiiiildren).  One of the more printable comments was simply “do these people really get paid for this?”  (Answer: yes — your tax dollars at work.)

If we tried to respond to every detail, this broadcast would give us a month worth of Lies posts, so we are just going to hit a few highlights.  As a summary, most of the content, other than a few specific points that we will highlight, was an embarrassing primer about e-cigarettes (most any reader of this blog could have done it better), along with the usual attacks that this is all some industry plot and is all about the advertising.  The ANTZ’s guiding mythology makes it impossible to admit that people use e-cigarettes (or smoke or whatever) because they want to, and thus they have to concoct this crazy (as in: as certifiably out of touch with reality as believing your garden gnomes are talking you) story about how a smattering of e-cigarette ads controls people’s when they make one of their most important life choices.

Since the anti-e-cigarette people are basically just the anti-smoking people with no additional education, they of course used the same old ANTZ playbook:  They talked about the importance years-old ads that ran briefly in such consumer-manipulation powerhouses as Convenience Store News.  They talked trash about specific companies, quite a few of which no longer exist.  Our favorite was their breathless concern about one e-cigarette merchant using women mimicking the old “cigarette girls” to sell e-cigarettes in a casino, which they seemed to think would appeal to young people.  Yes, it appeals to all of those young people who remember cigarette girls from c.1970 and who were in the casino.

The speakers from Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights (whose Orwellian name belies the fact that they were opposing rights for nonsmokers who want to use e-cigarettes instead, and who are really just anti-tobacco/nicotine extremists) took the lead on the ad hominem attack.  We were initially a bit disappointed to not be mentioned, because the first page of that presentation was devoted to business groups and think tanks.  They were obsessed about corporate connections and the e-cigarette industry’s new-found access to lobbying.  They singled out a few organizations, including ALEC (for those who do not know, a networking group that is described as either “pro-business” or “right-wing” depending on who you ask) who is such an important player that they might have penned two pro-THR and pro-e-cigarette missives (though only one comes to mind).  You could tell that what they really wanted to do was to complain that THR must be bad because, politically, people associated with the Republican Party tend to support it, but they probably did not want to threaten their CDC funding quite that aggressively.

(For those who might not know, e-cigarette users and THR supporters are pretty much randomly distributed across other political beliefs and affiliations, though they skew libertarian for obvious reasons.  By contrast, almost all of the attacks on THR in the US come from the “public health” political faction which is almost entirely affiliated with the Democrat Party — and which is starting to erode that party’s support — and thus for this particular issue, support of the public’s interest by politicians comes primarily from Republicans.)

CASAA did appear on the second page of ad hominem attacks, rather annoyingly in the context of RJR’s efforts to promote THR to politicians (something we are no happier about than the ANTZ are).  CASAA was identified as being Bill Godshall and Gregory Conley, though when mentioning those two they failed to acknowledge that it is they, and not the corporate lobbyists that they fixated on, who have done the most to protect e-cigarettes from anti-THR efforts.  Kudos to Greg for getting in their crosshairs; the rest of us are happy to toil in ANTZ anonymity.  Bill, however, works alongside us a lot but is independent of CASAA.  It is truly remarkable that the people who are chosen to be the experts who inform other ANTZ cannot even get that straight.  They are all about ad hominem attacks – because the science and true public opinion are not on their side – but they cannot even figure out who the hominems are.

They described CASAA as “theoretically a consumer advocacy organization”.  Cute, huh.  There was nothing presented to suggest that we are anything but that, of course, since it is an undeniable fact.  But by saying “theoretically”, they were able to insinuate it was not true without actually stating the lie they want to plant in the audience’s mind.  That remark was delivered by Bronson Frick and Cynthia Hallett, who theoretically have never even once hired a hooker for a threesome and then killed her and buried her in the basement.  See how that works?

(Oops.  So much for protecting all those chiiiildren who read this blog.)

The ad hominem attacks and emphasis on advertising really served to illustrate the question-begging circular “logic” that dominates the ANTZ approach.  It goes something like this:

Start with the assumption that e-cigarettes and THR are bad for the world and the public does not really like them.  Based on that, it is apparent that any company, advocacy group, or individual who acts out in support of the products or cause must be bad.  Having established that these people are bad, we will now tell you about their support THR and e-cigarettes.  With all those bad people supporting e-cigarettes and encouraging their use, it is obvious that they are bad for the world and that people only use them because they are being manipulated by bad people.  This proves our original point that e-cigarettes and THR are bad.

From the perspective of this blog, the biggest highlight of the presentation was a remarkable coincidence with the most recent two posts, which were about the American Cancer Society’s efforts to block regulations that would prevent sales of e-cigarettes to minors.  Joelle Lester from the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium informed the audience of what this blog already pointed out to our readers:  No action taken by a state or locality can weaken whatever action FDA or other federal regulators might take about e-cigarettes.  This was not a minor aside; it was pretty much the highlighted point of her talk, that everyone should be pursuing state and local restrictions without hesitation.

Readers will recall that the claim by ACS et al. was that they opposed bans on sales to minors because this would somehow undermine the pending FDA legislation.  We pointed out that this is obviously wrong, and that the ACS decision-makers undoubtedly know it.  Thus, the claim was a transparently false rationalization for hidden motives, which we went on to divine.  The presentation yesterday made it clear that not only is this obvious to anyone with even a casual understanding of US law, but that the group that is effectively the legal department for the US tobacco control industry is actively communicating that information.  Not a very clever rationalization for ACS to hide behind, then.

That is enough for today.  In the next post we will tell you about the highlight of that broadcast, a remarkable bit of honesty from a county health department that tried to restrict e-cigarette use, along with some of the other lowlights.

18 responses to “This is what anti-THR networking looks like (and a bit more on ACS)

  1. Very well written! Thank you Carl. :) Your catch on that “theoretically” is spot on the mark: it’s right along the lines of “no verified connections to the tobacco industry” type slurs that have been aimed at Free Choice folks for years.

    THIS was the most interesting to me: ” Also, the (lack of) ethics of such a move are not much different from using CDC funding to engage in what is basically an effort to lobby for state and local regulation; that is explicitly forbidden by law, but this CDC-funded webcast was definitely doing just that.”

    I hope you follow up on investigating that situation. If the CASAA folks were really easily identifiable and were the only ones unable to get through, and there were several of them willing to testify to that and if they are all reasonably competent computer people who normally hook up to things without difficulty … well, maybe you could really get somewhere with a complaint. Worth trying for!

    – Michael

  2. Pingback: Why do the American Cancer Society et al. oppose regulations to prevent kids from using e-cigarettes? | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

  3. Tobacco Prevention in a Fly Over State

    I sat through this annoying, repetitive discussion yesterday. I learned nothing other than there are groups of Anti-THR folks who believe that if they repeat misinformation and other inaccuracies long enough, we in public health tobacco prevention will ALL get our panties in a bundle and rally to fight our appointed foes – appointed by TFK and FDA and other sheep who follow along blindly. The leaders in this anti-THR movement are banking on getting public health tobacco prevention folks so riled up and hysterical that we’ll all continue to do their work of banning everything. Our discussions, as public health professionals, on this topic have become awfully tedious and incredibly unproductive. Meanwhile, smoking rates stall in the adult population. Yeah, I loved the conspiratorial, hushed tones used when mentioning Greg and Bill’s names and the exhortation to watch out for these devils. What pablum and nonsense it all was. I long to find someone, anyone, working in public health who isn’t in lock step with these hysterical crusaders.

    • Gregory Conley

      Sadly, I had a work call that I was on when they mentioned my name. It makes me so proud of CASAA and Bill’s work when we get mentioned in such a way. I need to send a thank you e-mail to Cynthia Hallett or whoever it was that mentioned us.

      As always, it’s wonderful to see that there is somoene in tobacco control who is paying attention. As we get more definitive proof that e-cigarettes help smokers quit, we’ll slowly attract more sensible people like yourself.

      • Tobacco Prevention in a Fly Over State

        Thank you, Greg. Keep fighting the good fight. If these public health folks had used all this energy to ban menthol flavoring instead, it would probably be gone by now.

  4. Tobacco Prevention in a Fly Over State

    By the way, Carl, I’m a liberal Democrat.

    • Carl V Phillips

      It is no secret (e.g., to anyone who follows my twitter feed) that I am not a Democrat because I am to (what is awkwardly and not really very precisely — in part because the single-dimension scale does not really work all that well — called) the left of the party on most issues. By world and historical standards, the party’s core is center-right. Additionally, I am not the only one to have made the observation that the grassroots THR movement is, by almost all measures and analogies, a leftist populist movement that (as far as we can tell) happens to garner more support by people who self-identify as being toward the right. This is partially caused by the current “public health” political faction (not be confused with real public health people like us) being largely associated with institutional wings of parties on the left in most Western countries, even though it not really either left or right by most measures. But that is an analysis for another day.

  5. “Others see them as gateway products to tobacco use and nicotine addiction”
    …from the agenda….really? a gateway? Since when is a more pleasant and less harmful alternative a “gateway” to something that is unpleasant and costlier?
    As these dictators continue on with their rhetoric, I continue to engage the court of public opinion by openly vaping proudly and converting hard core smokers along the way. So far I am batting 1000!

    • Carl V Phillips

      It is efforts like yours that are real public health, and that ensure that the anti-THR activists will not succeed, at least not in the USA. It is interesting to wonder what would happen if they figured that out — as they would if they read our open communication instead of just trying to shut themselves up in an echo chamber.

      The “gateway” myth, as you might know, was concocted by the anti-drug extremists to try to come up with an excuse for prohibiting cannabis despite the fact that it did not seem to cause any substantial harm. It was adopted by the anti-THR people long before e-cigarettes existed, and has become their only quasi-scientific claim about health as every other claim (e.g., smokeless tobacco causes a measurable risk of cancer) has been debunked. I need to write more about it. I will soon.

  6. Pingback: CASAA Listens So We Don’t Have To! | Ecig Advanced News

  7. Excellent writing as usual Carl. Keep up the great work you do and we shall see some daylight. Is this posted on the forums? It seems the word is not traveling far enough!

    • Carl V Phillips

      I should probably have a more focused distribution plan for each post, but I tend to rely on my twitter (which feeds to my facebook) and a few misc posts on our facebook pages. A few people frequently reblog it. If you would like to make a point to post it to your favorite forum(s) (a teaser and a link — please don’t just repost the whole thing) I would be delighted to deputize you as my publicist for that.

      • Thanks, and I’d love to be deputized. I’m not even on Twitter or any forums aside from vapetv and Facebook. I do however watch and participate somewhat on vapourtrailstv. They are doing some wonderful stuff on social media via twitter and email for publicity. Maybe CASAA can follow their lead? I know CASAA is overloaded and I have offered my help and money. I’ll keep spreading the word as I can. I suppose twitter would be a good first step?

        • Carl V Phillips

          Thanks. We cover twitter fairly well (anyone who is interested and likes that medium tends to follow me, Greg, CASAA). But if you can mention it on the broadcast networking, post to your facebook, etc., that would be great. (Note to EVERYONE!)

        • Thanks, I will.

  8. Pingback: This is what anti-THR networking looks like, Part 2 | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

  9. Pingback: 89 Days, 15 Hours, 29 Minutes … Safety in Numbers | The Flying Vapor

Leave a Reply to Carl V Phillips Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s