One colleague makes the false allegation that I work for the electronic cigarette industry, stating in a communication to another one of my close colleagues: "Perhaps in fairness you should let your readers know you are a spokesperson for the e-cigarette association."
Another colleague writes: "I have said this before and will repeat it every time you make these ignorant statements. I say ignorant because your "facts," perception and opinions are not based on truth. ... You are the enemy and I do not believe you should be allowed to continue on this listserve."
Some of you have already seen the first comment in response to my op-ed, which states: "Once again the New York Daily News allows a shill for the Tobacco Lobby to spew lies in its rag, what a joke, How much were they paid to allow this "commentary?"
This is just a sampling of the personal attacks and attempts at censorship I have received over the past few days.
The one thing I have not received - at all - is any substantive comments or arguments as to why my arguments are incorrect. In other words, no one has addressed my opposing views substantively. It has all been on the level of ad hominem attacks.
The Rest of the Story
These experiences are making me realize that the anti-smoking movement is very much a religious-like one and that it is based largely on ideology rather than science. Anti-smoking advocates are largely unable to respond substantively to opposing views from within; instead, they resort to personal attacks.
Moreover, there is an attempt to silence anyone with opposing views. As you can see, there is an effort afoot to try to get me banned from a secondhand smoke list-serve because I dare suggest that banning smoking everywhere outdoors may not be the most appropriate response to the problem and may not serve the goal of protecting nonsmokers from the hazards of tobacco smoke exposure.
In addition, not a single anti-smoking advocate has stepped forward publicly to defend me or my right to express my opinions (I have received numerous kind and supportive comments in private). There is clearly a group-think mentality that fosters the suppression of opposing views.
Why wouldn't there be? If someone with an opposing view is automatically considered to be and treated like "the enemy," then why would someone want to let their opposing views be known? This is an effective way of suppressing dissent and making sure that no one publicly strays from the established dogma (i.e., theology) of the movement.
At this point, I am not at all surprised at this response to my op-ed and my commentary about the potential role of e-cigarettes in promoting smoking cessation. The only thing that does surprise me is the nature of the comments I made which led to these attacks.
My op-ed is decidedly anti-smoking and in it, I strongly advocate for universal bans on smoking in the workplace. I also strongly state that chronic tobacco smoke exposure is a cause of heart disease and lung cancer and that acute exposure exacerbates asthma and angina in people with those conditions. These views would be considered strongly anti-smoking by any objective observer. But that isn't enough to be a part of the tobacco control movement. You have to accept the entire theology or you aren't a part of the religion. If you support bans on smoking in workplaces, restaurants, bars, casinos, bingo parlors, bowling alleys, billiard halls, stadiums, arenas, and other outdoor locations where nonsmokers are not easily able to avoid exposure, but you think it's going too far to ban smoking in all outdoors locations, such as huge, wide-open parks, then you are the "enemy" and you must be working for the tobacco industry. And you certainly shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion to others in the movement.
If you opine that electronic cigarettes might just be an effective way of helping many smokers stay off cigarettes (which appears to be unequivocally true based on the evidence), you could not possibly be expressing an objective opinion. You - by definition - must be working for the electronic cigarette industry. Or even if you aren't, you need to be attacked as working for the industry in order to discredit your opinion. After all, we wouldn't want to promote something that suggests that the "act" of smoking - even if it is far less harmful than actual smoking and will save lives - is in any way acceptable. It's clear that what we are fighting is not disease and death, it's the "act" and "idea" of going through "smoking-like" motions.
Ultimately, the reason why these anti-smoking advocates (i.e., colleagues) are unable to respond substantively and have to resort to ad hominem attacks is that they simply don't have scientific evidence to support their positions. They are left with nothing other than a personal attack. To address these issues substantively would be to admit defeat and to have to acknowledge that they were wrong. Better to go into attack mode and try to quell the dissenting opinion.
What is apparent is that my commentaries - exposing the truth - is having an impact. Nothing threatens anti-smoking groups and activists as much as the truth, when it doesn't support their statements or positions. And clearly, many of these advocates have no problem discarding the truth when making false accusations against their very own colleagues when they dare to state an opposing view.
Now the public knows the rest of the story. My hope is that the truth will ultimately prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment