not only in relation to eLiquids and vaping doom and gloom, but in any non-profit venture that position themselves specifically against something. I'll jump into the specifics of that statement in a minute, but consider the following: While research has yet to definitively calculate the precise long-term health hazards associated with vaping, reputable scientific institutions are increasingly coming to the same conclusion: Vaping eLiquids are vastly safer than smoking, actually help smokers quit, and are a net positive for public health.
As I have written about before: Somehow in spite of this, the common perspective of e-cigarette safety has actually declined, while simultaneously demands for stricter regulation, from talks of flavor limitations to straight up bans, have only increased. Why does the perception of eLiquids, vaping, and e-cigarettes diverge so heavily in the eyes of the public?
I'm willing to posit that the confusion is the intentional result of an organized disinformation campaign led by groups that ought to be among the most supportive of lower-risk tobacco alternatives: the anti-smoking health advocates. This phenomenon isn't related strictly to vaping either, like I said in the start of this blog, any organization that stands specifically in opposition to a single issue utilizes the same playbook.
That's the basic formula, and it is not necessary to follow this in any particular order, whatever continues the organization along is good for the organization after all.
The reality is that all charitable and nonprofit organizations have to chase funding to support and sustain their efforts. They need income in order to pay salaries, rent, utilities, and most importantly the projects that advance their causes. Analogous to regular profit businesses that must compete for customers, nonprofits also compete with one another for limited private donations from individuals, corporations, foundations, universities, governments, anyone offering grant money, and any other sources for financial support.