Electronic Cigarette Marketing and Passive Smoking
We have a little bit of a quandary.
Many e-cigarette companies market their products by saying there is no risk of secondhand smoke.
Which there isn’t. And, with accusations of passive ‘vaping’ flying around in America, it’s a point that needs to be made.
This is what we say on our front page, although I may rephrase it soon:
“And perhaps most importantly, the electronic cigarette is not harmful to others around you.”
However, there are problems with the claim, as it implies that passive smoking is a real risk.
At the very least, the dangers of passive smoking has been exaggerated. (And if you think I am a crank consider that Richard Doll, one of the scientists who discovered the link between passive smoking and cancer, had the same opinion; See Passive Smoking: A Risk Too Small To Worry About?)
Obviously, this intensely irritates the smokers’ rights crowd, as they have told me several times! And that’s a problem as ethical electronic cigarette companies (as we strive to be) should be working together with smokers’ rights groups against the unethical attack on both smoker’s rights and the electronic cigarette.*
And also because electronic cigarettes users, hardened by their battles against lies and misinformation, have proven the most sceptical of the public against the most extreme anti-smoking claims (smoker’s breath is dangerous e.t.c.)
I still need to change that damn wording, without losing the point that electronic cigarettes really do not offer any danger of passive smoking.
Any ideas?
*(In fact, everyone should. You may not be a smoker, but are you a drinker? Like fastfood? How long will it be before they tell you how to live your life?)
Tags: electronic cigarettes, marketing, passive smoking
Related posts:
Leave a comment:
4 Comments → “Electronic Cigarette Marketing and Passive Smoking”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe via RSS
Free User Guide
You are so right. What is the best thing to do when a false belief actually drives people to do or support the right (healthier) thing?
Someone in tobacco control once told me that their characterization of nicotine as dangerous had been found to be the prime motivator in getting people to quit smoking, and therefore, even if it was false, they thought it was worth repeating.
I don’t think so. False statements eventually undermine trust even if done in “good faith”. Ultimately, using misleading information to drive people is both dishonest and dismissive.
I’m torn on this one. I completely agree, people need to learn the truth, however they don’t. So once a misconception gets out there, it’s really hard or often times impossible to put it to bed.
How many times have you read a story of someone falsely accused on the front page of the paper and exonerated later, only to suffer for the rest of their lives “hey, arn’t you that guy??”
Just look at poor Mary Magdalene, the “repentant prostitute” in most christian’s eyes now since 811 when Pope Gregory got her confused with that other Mary. Even with the churches doing what they can now and with all the biblical scholars saying he got it wrong for centuries, ask just about anyone who the prostitute in the bible is and they will instantly say Mary Magdalene.
I feel for the smokers groups, but let’s face it, the genie is out of the bottle and we are not going to put it back. Even if every scientist on the planet proved beyond a reasonable doubt tomorrow that second hand smoke is hogwash, it wouldn’t matter to most people, specially the anti smoking crowd.
Smokers are a dying breed. Sad but true. In a few years it’s either going to be completely illegal, far too expensive or all the smokers will just be dead.
Perhaps this really isn’t a bad thing. Worst thing i ever did in my life was start smoking.
so, if we are going to really get the ecig into the hands of the people who need it, those who are dying from cigarettes and we want to make it palatable for the anti smoking folks, go with the no passive smoke. It undercuts their arguments against us, gives us a big bonus over tobacco in everyone’s eyes and may just be the one thing that keeps the drug company, tobacco industry, anti smokers axis of evil from outlawing us completely.
I can see both points.
From a marketing perspective it’s tricky too. It’s hard to keep your message punchy in this case.
Electronic Cigarettes: No Secondhand Smoke
Hardly compares to:
Electronic Cigarettes: No Secondhand Smoke, although to be honest the danger of second hand smoke from cigarettes is probably severely overstated.
The other thing that worries me is that the exaggerated danger of passive smoking has become so widely accepted that many people consider those who challenge it to be conspiracy theorists. And people don’t buy from conspiracy theorists!
“Smokers are a dying breed. Sad but true. In a few years it’s either going to be completely illegal, far too expensive or all the smokers will just be dead.”
Not necessarily bad. Smoking is pretty unhealthy. (Alhtough, if everyone stopped smoking it would cost the government a fortune in pensions and lost tobacco revenues!) What’s worries me is the intrusion on people’s right, and also the fact that the anti-smoking appears to have legitimised the use of junk science in the support of a cause.
Lets face it people, smoking is bad, and people that smoke accept the risks, but passive smoking is NOT somthing that can always be avoided. the like between second hand smoke and cancer is a small one, but cancer is just one thing that can develop as a result of breathing in smoke.
the E-Cigarette does not lie with its claims and there is no arguing this.
point… made..