I think you're pretty safe on that call, but we can certainly have some sort of documented reasonable level. I would think a large portion of users may
buy a few extra kits and resell them, that hardly makes them suppliers.
There are some obvious extremes, and mtndude made a good point that if a board member became a reseller it does not have to affect their status. Since being a vendor has a tendency to make you an advocate, it seems that being an advocate makes one a prime candidate to be a vendor.
I hope I'll be forgiven for the negative backlash the following statement could draw, but it occurs to me that e-cigarettes are a strong candidate for alternate marketing plans including "multilevel marketing". In these cases, the idea is to turn nearly
every user into a distributor.
Perhaps this concern is premature since if there is a vendor using an MLM model, it is not yet a major player...but the business side of e-cigarettes is so very young that significant paradigm changes should be expected. For example, we could possibly get legal protection established for using PV's as a freedom of
religion if anorganization were to incorporate vaping in a faith-based ritual.
What I would then suggest is that the "line" determining if someone is an industry professional might be related to whether or not a candidate is working full-time at an executive level for a business that generates a significant portion of their their profit from products covered by the CASAA mission statement. By this I mean I don't think we care if a board member works on a tobacco farm or mixes their own liquid and sells it at a flea market on the weekends, but we want some "checks and balances" protection from undue bias from more than 3 board members having professional ties that could constitute a conflict of interest.
Along with the limit of no more than 3 board members working full-time in a directly related industry, I would also suggest that the board should consist of no more than one person from any given vendor.
It has been previously suggested that CASAA might offer vendors a "Seal of Approval" if they can show their business practice meets our safety and ethics standards. I would suggest that an official endorsement like that should require a unanimous vote, so no more than one member at a time should need to recuse themself from such a vote.
The marketing models established by businesses like Amway, Mary Kay, Primerica, and Mona Vie seem a natural fit for personal vaporizers. PV's effect lives in such a way that home meetings, direct shipping, and subscribed refills might be more effective than retail space, online ordering, or behind the counter refills. If we get an unfavorable ruling in a legal case, the MLM subculture mentality (if you follow my meaning) would be ideal for disseminating information and making corrections to marketing materials, for example.
