The debate on e-cigarettes is more toxic than e-cigarettes themselves. Classic tobacco control is genuinely concerned over addiction potentials, and the involvement of corporate/big tobacco. While for-profit public health groups resort to conjectures and misrepresentations, paralogisms (Think of the children, and flavour fallacy), straight up disinformation (see EVALI), and the obvious repugnance towards public discourse (Bloomberg/WHO).
Harm retention groups are motivated by science denial, XY problems (tobacco control isn't public health, but a failed branch of law enforcement), and financial interdependencies on tobacco/pharma relations. It's largely held together by deflections, delay tactics, and astroturfing.
There's never been a harm reduction strategy (seatbelts, methadone, face masks) that wasn't met with hostility. THR opposition however seems motivated beyond ideology and tobacco side hustles. But since armchair diagnosis will go nowhere, this project is about classification firstly. (And providing some quick entry points.)
- It's inevitable to classify some of the common ANTZ arguments again. Mainly to figure out some common phrases and possible origins.
- List some relevant organizations, in particular Bloomberg front groups.
- Political parties are on-topic, if there were attempts at curtailing smoking cessation.
- Attempt documenting NGO/FPH relations, and probable motivations (mostly for benefit of the doubt; it's just observational classification).
- Try to come up with a scoring system on scientific contravention, even if only approximating a list of points to check.
- Don't put every word on the gold scale for e.g. PAVe or public appearances. But for TI/WHO: do.