..and is so harmful and wrong.

The original article written by Kelly Crowe is a key stone summary piece aimed from all sides at vaping. Sadly is is also wrong on so many levels that it exemplifies some of the deepest and darkest divides of how a society should behave and how the very foundations of our entire culture are so easily left to chance. Our social institutions forgo their ethical and social responsibilities to wage a personal war and completely forget the important duty that they must adhere to at all costs. For a corrected version of this same article please have a look a “The Road to Vaping – Corrected” By Kellie Ann the founder of the Vaping Advocacy and Education Project. While you are there don’t forget to have a look through the Shareables section where you can find infographics that can be easily shared, so you can help fight the campaign of falsehoods.

Fake news is the understatement of the year!

In a decision to keep things short I will only look to the first 3 paragraphs to demonstrate the gross manner in which she is misleading Canadians. In her effort to be thorough she has produced a lot of content in her article, I commend her tenacity to see her publication to the size that it became. However if it smells like bull, looks like bull there’s no amount of sugar that will make it a brownie. So let’s take the crap out of the oven shall we?
She starts off the article in large letters making a claim to how vaping has failed, she writes:

Less than two years ago, the federal government officially welcomed the vaping industry to Canada. The belief among policy-makers and public health experts was that e-cigarettes were safer than combustible cigarettes and would help smokers kick their habit. That’s not what happened.

By Kelly Crowe – December 2, 2019

In that statement alone there are 3 claims made that must be addressed.

1. Less than two years ago, the federal government officially welcomed the vaping industry to Canada
   • She makes this statement as if to imply that there wasn’t a HUGE amount of fighting done just to keep the Government from following recommendations from the W.H.O. the F.D.A. and just about every other country in the world who had decided to act on the topic of vaping save for the UK and ban it! They would have had her support as well should they have. Instead the industry and some rational minds prevailed enough to plead a case for truth.
     
   • We wouldn’t let them as we had experienced the miracle it provided us. And make no mistake, to any smoker who is firmly entrenched in their habit the ease in which vaping helps to remove the harm from tobacco in their lives is just that, a miracle.
     
   • Our Government did not want to have to deal with this knowing how much attention it would draw and would have liked to have simply swept it under the rug and to lead of the story in such away sets the government up as either corrupt leaders on the take or as bumbling idiots. This is ironically what they were being accused of being for NOT supporting vaping!
     
2. The belief among policy-makers and public health experts was that e-cigarettes were safer than combustible cigarettes and would help smokers kick their habit.
   • This one is not only insulting but either maliciously misleading or, incredibly ignorant to a point of mal-intent! For anyone who actually learns anything about the industry would see that the exact opposite of this claim, that the use of vaping to quit smoking is a misguided belief, is true as this what the whole industry is! People quitting smoking!
     
   • The insult here is that if it doesn’t really work that would mean that every shop owner like me is a snake oil salesman who either keeps duping new customers into trying it in order to stay afloat since why would a smoker vape if it doesn’t work?
     
   • As well as the insult that everyone who vapes is a sucker who has been taken for a ride! Well I guess her hope is to lead so many of us poor dumb folk back to reason and intelligence.
     
3. That’s not what happened.
   • Uhhh more vape shops now operate under regulations ensuring a 19+ only environment where Canadians can gather to discuss what worked best for them on their path to quit smoking. . . . how is this a fail?
     
   • Sadly the largest deterrent to the absolute undeniable success has been the opinions of bloggers who have not adhered to code of ethics which accurately informs people in favor if garnering more clicks through the use of fear mongering .

So much wrong in the first 3 sentences, this is less about informing Canadians of the truth as it is about personal professional and industry success through the oldest tick in the book.

Let’s really dig in!…….

We aren’t even at the first paragraphs first sentence yet and already if the reader doesn’t have the impression that the tobacco industry has duped our government, and by proxy us all so they could get at our poor innocent children Id be shocked! She goes on to further her pre text and states :

This story is part of Vape Fail, a CBC News series examining some of the policy failures that led to the adoption of vaping as a smoking alternative and the resulting consequences.

Ok so let’s look at these claims:

1. ‘a CBC News series examining some of the policy failures’
   • Well if you include the banning of these products for youth a policy failure (as I personally do) then she is telling the truth. Sadly further down her article that might be the only one she considers an appropriate step! (despite the fact that even with age of majority law in place since 1908 teens still continued to smoke! Maybe the policy needs another 100 years to really sink its teeth in?)
     
   • The failing, she would go onto argue, is essentially that the lack of an all out ban implies a lax attitude and a carelessness on the part of the government to not do enough as the vanguard of public health.
     
   • Plus there are a number of time throughout the article that imply zero to no restriction on advertising which is so far from the truth it’s laughable.
     
2. ‘led to the adoption of vaping as a smoking alternative’ 
   • This is partially true as there are a small percentage of Canadians who vape that never smoked. In the study often quoted by media by Dr Hammond they used the number of a 75% increase in youth vaping which is to say that out of the 2500 youth polled in 2017, 9 of them who vaped had never smoked. Then, in 2018 there were 15 out or 2500. . . The CBC should know better than to cite unpublished studies even if they are done by someone at the University of Waterloo. No matter, in this article they use numbers and stats not even from Canada to scare Canadians under the implied approach of a harm we don’t yet know exists but according to history must be as bad as if not worse than tobacco.
     
   • Secondly as an adult why can I not have the right to vape if I choose? Especially if it is in an effort to say prevent being tempted to try a cigarette?
     
   • Third let’s consider ignoring the evidence that states that kids who vape are the same ones who are prone to smoke tobacco (yes that probably includes you child as well. . . . you know why? Cause that’s what teens do!) and look at the situation as it stands that everyone is panicking over. Kids are illegally procuring and illegally using vapes. This is a criminal activity and punishable as such. You can’t make it ‘more’ illegal!
     
   • Four let’s forget that our children are in any way intelligent enough to make and act on decisions for themselves, and treat them like the little pawns they truly are and forgive them for breaking the law, we might hurt their feelings after all. What then are we left with? Right, big tobacco is after your kids!
     • It is true that overall market share by sales is dominated by big tobacco today. This is due to the rise of JUUL a product that was bought into by Philip Morris who to this day does not own a controlling share
     • Big tobacco does not exist in my vape shop so it’s not the industry I know. She fails to mention the distinction of sales vs market offerings.
       
   • Five if it is then not big tobacco that runs the industry who could possibly be able to afford to advertise on a level in which a brand could reach national or even international status? At the time there were a couple like Space Jam, Cosmic Fog, Naked, but even then the exposure to any ecig by most youth comes from the very media itself and its declaration of naughty naughty naughty teens who vape and a constant mention of flavours like Unicorn Farts, Blue Razzberry and Cotton Candy.
     ~ (Blue Razzberry being the #1 requested flavor from my adult customers BTW I would gladly tell you more about why if I thought you cared to know and were willing to make me believe that you didn’t think yourself above those who use blue razz without even trying it first). ~
     Vaping didn’t need to advertise, the media spread the word of vaping for us. Sadly it was a message designed to tempt and allure teens to try the latest thing and written with the knowledge of how to truly tempt kids and they targeted the kids from every angle. Instead of educating adults about the benefits of switching and how awesome and boring it ultimately is when compared to alcohol or THC the media choose to spin the narrative of fear for adults while at the same time propagating the behavior they were there to help prevent. But hey like the good Mrs Lovejoy said:

1. ‘and the resulting consequences‘
   • Well people are using vapes in record numbers . . . as any new product usually does, it grows since that’s the definition of a growing market. So why is that scary? Oh its because that despite research stating the contrary it’s become standard operating procedure to imply that a nicotine addiction will ultimately lead to a smoking addiction and thus all the harms that come with it. which makes sense when you think about it, a product that has naturally drawn hundreds of thousands of people away from tobacco must then naturally lead people to it right?. . . .
     
   • It’s this implied fear of tobacco use and the fear of the unknown outcome of using known products through the lungs instead of orally through the digestive tract. I often hear the argument “these flavourings were not meant for use at high temperatures” which is to say that these food flavourings are to never be used in an over or microwave. . . *facepalm smack*
     
   • Vaping has been around for over 10 years we should be able to see something by now right? Not surprisingly no, and we know why. Because we know the truth about the potential harm being reduced by orders of magnitude from that of smoking tobacco. We know exactly what is in it as unlike a product of combustion which destroys molecules, the e-juice used is merely transformed from a liquid state to a gaseous state of vapour. Nothing changed about the chemical makeup either than our perception of it and how it resembles that which must forever be thrust to the outside where those other people choose to destroy all that is holy and scared!
     
   • You have an issue with teens vaping ? I have an issue with teens being made to wait till they are 19 or 21 to access vaping products when they probably started smoking cigarettes at a far younger age!

To offer a brief summary here this was how much misinformation is embedded in the minds of the anti vapers that I only had to look at the first two paragraphs to produce an entire blog post worth of reading. I had started this with the intention of itemizing every single paragraph but it would take me weeks to do so ( and I still might ) but here’s the thing. This is the job of the journalist. To see both sides and fact check both sides and then to present the information in a clear and concise way to the public to make their own minds up.

And before any new laws should ever be enacted when it comes to a new technology or industry it is my belief that those laws should not only address concerns of a proven reality but also cite the way in which that information is gather and how it was measured so that any policy intent to correct said concern can be accurately proven as effective and worth keeping. I say this often, first prove there is a specific harm, give me the chance to mitigate the impact of whatever is causing that harm and if that proves to be impossible to do then ban it. however in order to measure how much damages is caused by the use of a product one first has to find damage to measure. Then one has to understand how it is used and where and when said usage may be abused by some and if the value of the products recommended use is worth the risks or harms that it causes.

What is the controlling authority over our nation’s news media industry, this trusted industry that is charged with what might be the greatest of all responsibilities? One might think that it is regulated by the CRTC. Sadly as it states in their mandate

We do not intervene in newspapers, magazines, the quality and content of TV and radio programs or the retail rates for most communication services.

CRTC – Our Mandate

they are not the ones to call when there’s trouble. As best I can tell you have to go straight to the perpetrators themselves and make a complaint to their media ombudsman and director of Standards and Practices AKA corporate defense attorney or so it would seem. And, yes the code of ethics in today’s modern media company is so important that requires a director to head the department up. Apparently understanding how these things work is rather complicated. I mean have a read for yourself all you have to do is choose 1 of 25 sub categories. Not being a lawyer myself I find understanding the jargon tough. And that its being there at all is less about finding and correcting poor behavior internally as it is for shaming those who complain, while at the same time stating that words published are true.
I agree though, that while truthful statements must be the only statements quoted, there must be an equally important focus on the context that those statements are communicated in.

It’s no wonder fake news is so easily understood as a relatable truth to most people. Corporate profits and influence have dumbed down the expectation of facts so long as the feeling of moral agreement with the rest of the country is conveyed. And with the CBC now 75% funded by add dollars are they truly able to stand as they were intended to stand? Are they truly able to be a benchmark of which the private companies must at least match just to gain attention? And if not where does that leave us?

How do we, as Canadians, bestow the public trust that is so needed in our busy lives to any one company again? How do we take appropriate steps to ensure that the “freedom of the press” is not only supported and encouraged but is also accountable to a public entity that can be trusted? How can we ensure a balanced report of any one scenario hasn’t been through the filter of creative license or from a position of public’s best interests without a clear and navigable path of accountability?

Are the factual words responsibly conveyed in a truthful manor? How fake is your news today?

The next time you see an article about vaping ask yourself to listen for more than an implied fear and i’ll bet you are hardpressed to come away with a specifIC bit of info that ina anyway would actually scare you more than the know outcomes of smoking tobacco.

And remember that the bar of reality for a news cast must never be anywhere near the one used for a “Reality TV” show. Always ask yourself what it is they are selling and how what they are saying to you at anyone time got your attention. Then seek to find the rest of the story cause if there is this much wrong with something as small as vaping I can’t even imagine what is wrong with the real large issues!