Slightly confused about CASAA

[Jodans]

Kristin, this is EXACTLY what I am asking here. What are the alternatives, and why are we supporting them?

I can understand the why of advocating tobacco free alternatives.
I never knew there was some sort of Snus from Sweden that is better than the Camel stuff that instantly pops in my head when I see this word. After reading what Kristin said about the husband, and Webbys response to it, and some brief researching online I can understand why some tobacco products would be considered too.

Though unless it is just snus that is in consideration, it still leaves me to question WHAT are the other alternatives?
To me, I prefer to only get behind things I believe in and am informed about.
In example: I'd hate to be a part of CASAA and these alternatives that I haven't heard of, to find a product we are supporting to be intravenous tobacco leaf extract.
While a ludicrous idea that I am (pretty) certain would never happen, it works to illustrate my point. I want to ensure that what CASAA supports are also things I would support as well.

I think too many people in this world say, "That's a brilliant idea!" and jump on board to support an ideal that sounds good without taking the time to investigate a little further before dedicating their time and energy.
To be honest, I'm guilty of doing that myself with CASAA. I said, "Hey, this is a great idea!" and started reading to see if there was anything I may be able to offer (haven't found anything yet, sadly.).
Then I find out that it wasn't what I thought it was initially, which mind you I am not calling a bad thing, and I needed this question answered to with a clear conscience proceed with involvement in CASAA. While I am relatively certain CASAA is not out to harm or defraud anyone, nor is it wanting to deliver us unto the jaws of the FDA/ASH/Big whatever, I still need to make sure it is something I can believe in.
For me, there are not any other motives for starting this thread other than that "What are we supporting?"

[Sun Vaporer]

Absolutely old friend...

I just had a terrifying brush with "The Big C" and am not advocating tobacco myself. I am all about keeping e-cigs legal. Judge Leon can classify them are hot shaving cream dispensers for all I care. E-cigs are a different animal and time will prove that. We just have to push to keep them from being brushed under the rug while this plays out.

No Problem Webby--and they just may have to find them classifying the E-cig as something other then a drug or a tobacco product. I do not think vaping the saving cream would have a good taste though, but I think I will give it a try!!!



Sun

[Jodans]

Wow a lot of posts went by while I was typing that out. (Was doing my best to not sound argumentative.)
Thank you Elaine, I'll take a gander at that. Am I safe to assume the things they speak of there are the things CASAA will be supporting?

[kristin]

Jodans,

This is our most recent draft of our mission statement:

"Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives."

We want the availability of effective, reduced harm products that have acceptable safety standards. Obviously, unless they prove that "intravenous tobacco leaf extract" is significantly safer, viable and more effective than cigarette smoking, we aren't going to get behind it! It's more about making sure that reduced harm products are available for the legal adults who choose to use them. If you believe that "intravenous tobacco leaf extract" has been proven safer and more effective for you than smoking, well, that should be your choice. (I know that is an extreme example, highly unlikely and I only use it as a tongue-in-cheek example, but bear in mind that there are a lot of people who believe e-cigs aren't any safer and want to take those away from us, as well.)

[Jodans]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

[Sun Vaporer]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

Jodans--you are not dense at all---bottom line is to see that the privilage of vaping can be protected and that the PV can be proven at least reasonably safe to be an alternative to smoking.


Sun

[Treece]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

You really should check out Vocalek's suggestion: tobaccoharmreduction.org. There's a lot of information there, including studies that show smokeless tobacco is, in fact, much safer than smoking. There's more evidence to support smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction product than there are for PVs, actually.

That said, I'm so glad to hear this is CASAA's direction. There's contention in the tobacco control movement over harm reduction, and many are reluctant to speak out about it because of the extremist backlash. Until e-cigs, that contention revolved around smokeless tobacco. Maybe e-cigs will be the catalyst that pushes the more moderate/reasonable/scientific minds in tobacco control onto the side of harm reduction.

[kristin]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

Not dense at all.

Of course, being that the founding board members of CASAA are primarily e-cig owners, most of the members are e-cig owners and a couple board members are even e-cig retailers, the ability to have and use e-cigs will always be very important to the organization - we just don't want to leave out other important smokeless alternatives, for people who can't use (or get) e-cigs.

The most important thing is that reduced harm alternatives are made available and acceptable - rather than just the "quit or die" mindset.

[Jodans]

Oh look, a lightbulb!
I believe I get it now.
Thanks everyone.

[kinabaloo]

Bottom line, we can't continue to say:

They aren't tobacco.
They aren't drugs.
They aren't taxable.
Now leave us alone.

Many will feel great disquiet at these words. It sounds very much like 'surrender!'. A sleight of hand whereby the 'win' would be entirely on their terms.

Many will see CASSA as the 'smiling face' of the FDA / BP empire.

The reality is that they are safer than freely available cigarettes (and snus), why should e-cigs be controlled as drugs? Why should a sin tax be applied when unlike smoking and alcohol use there are no health or social costs?

Just saying. 'Being realistic' can get too close to cop out.

We should engage with the FDA as much as we can, but with our heads held high and our own agenda (based on harm reduction for example).