Schmoozing with Stanton Glantz
Monday, February 26, 2018 at 15:07 There was a brief yet interesting exchange of views on Twitter at the weekend.
From SRNT2018 (aka the annual meeting of the Society For Research On Nicotine and Tobacco) in Baltimore, Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, tweeted:
Had a good talk with @ProfGlantz tonight. pic.twitter.com/1cKPb7M45u
— Gregory Conley (@GregTHR) February 24, 2018
Prof Glantz is of course Stanton Glantz, American's leading tobacco control activist. Much has been written about Glantz, including recent claims that he 'sexually harassed a former researcher and stole credit for her work', allegations he 'categorically denies'.
I won't elaborate on that story (you can read it for yourself) because I happen to believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, however much I may disagree with them personally and professionally.
Nevertheless there are plenty of other reasons why I'd decline to be photographed with Glantz, the pair of us grinning like Cheshire cats.
If it was the result of an entirely spontaneous encounter over which he had very little control I could just about understand it. But Greg seems to have been on a mission.
Earlier, for example, he tweeted:
For my 31st birthday (which is today), I'd like to have a drink or shot with my favorite foe, @ProfGlantz. I have five hours to make this happen.
— Gregory Conley (@GregTHR) February 22, 2018
Between times he posted another picture (below) in which he stands next to Glantz who seemed unaware of his presence.
Overall it gave the impression that Greg was ever-so-slightly obsessed with meeting his “favorite foe”.
When I saw these tweets I kept quiet because I thought it was (a) none of my business and (b) I didn't want to fall out with Greg, who I like.
In any case I didn't have to say anything because Carl Phillips, former scientific director of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), posted his reaction via a series of tweets that Greg started to answer before signing off to drive home.
It got me thinking, though. What, if any, are the limits when it comes to ‘engaging’ with tobacco control zealots like Glantz?
To be clear, and to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, I have never knowingly blanked or ignored a professional 'foe'. I have always believed one should be civil – even friendly – with opponents, not least because, in some instances, it winds them up royally!
On other occasions it's because I genuinely like or respect them.
I draw the line however at schmoozing in such an overt fashion with someone I genuinely hold in contempt because, to me, that is hypocritical.
Engaging with opponents is generally a good thing (and Greg later tweeted that he “learned a few things that may be useful in the future”), but appearances matter and this seemed a bit too chummy for my taste.
To be fair, Greg wouldn’t be the first to succumb to the curse of the casual encounter but I'm surprised he made so much of it.
Then again, I've attended a good few tobacco control conferences myself and I've noticed an increasing tendency for vaping advocates to actively seek the company/approval of even the most zealous anti-smoking activists in the optimistic belief it might unlock the door to a vape-friendly future.
Another observation is that the same advocates studiously avoid criticising any anti-smoking campaigner they categorise as pro-vaping.
This is particularly noticeable on Twitter. At the weekend, for example, Derek Yach’s Foundation for a Smoke-Free World recycled some WHO propaganda about secondhand smoke killing 890,000 people each year and hardly anyone batted an eyelid.
Even people who, a few years ago, would have reacted with disbelief if not laughter to this nonsense, remained silent.
The reason is pretty clear. In harm reduction circles Yach is the closest thing there is to a ‘celebrity’ and in some people's eyes that puts him – and his Foundation – on a pedestal and beyond criticism.
It's also human nature for people to be slightly subservient to those they consider a 'big beast'. Even if they don't agree with them they are gratified and even flattered by their company or attention.
That, at least, is my assessment of the psychology behind all this. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it. What do you think?
Someone snapped this photo while I was looking at a poster. #SRNT2018 pic.twitter.com/704L2wkjZs
— Gregory Conley (@GregTHR) February 24, 2018
Reader Comments (5)
I don't think this is anything new. I was staggered to hear a few years ago that a very prominent long-term anti-tobacco activist regularly has dinner with someone who is on the polar opposite end of the scale working for tobacco companies.
It's just a big game, which you will understand. Politicians are no different, gutting each other at every opportunity and trying to get each other sacked, but behind it all there's a quiet friendship.
Sun Tzu had something to say about "know yourself, know your enemy".
Anyone who promotes the lie of deaths caused by smokers is no friend of ours.
Phillip Morris has gone full anti smoker. Anyone might think it is admitting murder.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/smoking-netherlands-attempted-murder-case-philip-morris-british-american-tobacco-benedicte-ficq-lung-a8223381.html
I think we all hoped the Foundation would hold itself to higher standards of honesty.
I think it’s a bit creepy, to be honest. That bottom photo actually has shades of the stalker about it! But in any case, I’m not quite sure what he means when he talks about “his favourite foe.” As he isn’t a smoker any more, surely Glantz would no longer be a foe? As far as I am aware, Glantz only hates smokers – no-one else, and this chap isn’t one of us any more. So ... how can he still be a “foe” when they’re now on the same side? Strange.
I fully agree with you: one should always be civil with adversaries, even extreme adversaries whose qualifications and ethics we hold in contempt. Also, I agree that we should not undertake personal and ad hominem attacks. LIke in Rugby, we should go for the ball (arguments), not for the man (no personal attacks). Unfortunately, I doubt somebody like Glantz and other less known extremists in tobacco control follow these civility rules. The way they have (individually and as a collective) treated adversaries and dissidents has practically always involved ad hominem, blanket disqualifications and personal attacks. Look at the cases of James Enstrom and Jacob Sullum. As a side note: I am surprised to see that Glantz is such a short chubby guy, almost as tender as a teddy bear grampa, I imagined him much taller and muscular.
I agree with Dick, who is being rather mischievous. Who is the UK's best known long-term anti-tobacco activist; and who, at the opposite end of the spectrum, receives funding from the tobacco industry?