Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

This past Wednesday, Jason Healy from Blu and Craig Weiss from Njoy sat in front of a committee hearing where they got nothing short of bullied for about 2 hours. The hearing was with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and many speakers spent their time simply berating the two for the marketing tactics which speakers believed would lead to a new generation of dying smokers for the sake of profits.

In the face of misleading facts, slanted questions, being called what’s wrong with this country, being told that their only motive is money, and being held accountable for the practices of every e-cig company in the country despite only representing one each, both Healy and Weiss maintained absolutely perfect composure. Neither appeared to get angry, short, or frustrated. Neither interrupted any of the speakers to attempt a correction or argue why they had answered a slanted question in a certain way. And despite all this professionalism and corporate dutifulness, neither actually did anything good for themselves, their companies, or the industry at large.

There’s a perception that if you allow an opponent to drag you down to their level, anger you, or force impassioned words out of you, that you’re somehow falling into a trap and allowing yourself to appear defensive, driven by emotion, and otherwise extremely biased. This couldn’t be further from the truth in many situations. The reality is that anything you give someone is something they will try to use against you. Act with passion, and you’re on a warpath and won’t see reason. Act with complete composure, and you’re a perfect corporate drone that doesn’t actually care about the issues.

But showing too much emotion will always be preferable to not showing enough or any. At least then, you’re being genuine — and people respond to that. Healy and Weiss did not appear genuine at all. Their answers were dull and safe, and they appeared focused on responding in the most non-committal (read weaselly) way possible. I don’t believe that Healy and Weiss intended to be weaselly, but that is likely the word witnesses to the hearing had in mind watching their responses.

I really wanted to see either of them respond with some force. In short, I wanted them to disagree with speakers. When a speaker says that e-cig companies are only motivated by the pursuit of money and would sell tobacco to a kid if that’s what it takes to make a profit, stand up and [email protected]#$ing disagree! When a speaker claims nicotine is just as addictive in e-cigs as it is in tobacco cigarettes when science is suggesting that’s not the case, stand up and [email protected]#$ing disagree! When a speaker acts like the advertising tactics of another company are your responsibility, stand up and [email protected]#$ing disagree!



This wasn’t a refined discussion of science and statistics and best policy. This was a setting for over-zealous anti-smoking fanatics to bully people they perceived as the enemy and pat themselves on the back for doing it. As is, they succeeded in that effort and they appeared to be in the right by many accounts because the two representatives of e-cig interests there didn’t really put up a fight. They answered questions without context and allowed speakers to dictate absolutely all terms of the engagement.

I can only hope that Healy and Weiss learn from this situation. By all means, let opponents bait you with slanted questions and misleading facts — and then beat them up a bit for using them. Above all, don’t be afraid to say, That is an asinine question designed to get a misleading response. And then explain your position.

At least when you let someone drag you into a fight — even an unfair one — you can get in some punches too.