CASAA - Organization

[mtndude]

CASAA (draft)
​

Mission:

The mission of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to defend the consumer's right to choose an alternative to smoking.

Objective:

CASAA is a non-profit coalition of consumers and industry professionals working together to educate the public about the real risks and potential benefits of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine alternatives. It is the group’s goal to publicize research and support harm reduction technologies, as well as provide and support political and legal causes that preserve consumer freedom.


Organizational Goals


1. To inform and educate the general public as to the available options for reduced harm tobacco and smoke-free nicotine alternatives and provide documentation to reputable medical and news items.

2. To maintain a web-based community for individual users and their shared experiences with these products by testimonials, photos and multimedia clips.

3. Formation of a collective voice for the urging of more positive political, medical and legal representation of the electronic cigarette and smoke-free alternative community in congress, the medical community and the media.

4. Maintain a strong opposition to sales or marketing to minors.

5. Endorse manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to ethical standards such as:

* Provide accurate documentation and safety information to their customers.
* Provide fair and legal advertising or marketing claims on packaging, and web sites
* Require purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
* Report attempts of purchases by minors to the proper legal authorities.


6. Establish guidelines for responsible, fair and ethical business practices that manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers are required to maintain in order to receive group approval.

7. Act as a clearinghouse for information about products and services that adhere to ethical practices, high standards of quality and demonstrate true representation of products intended for consumers.

8. Provide resources for people who choose smoke-free or harm reducing alternatives to improve their personal health.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[mtndude]

Sorry for the delay. I hope the thread's heading will suffice.

This thread is a continuation of: ECO - Organization Charter: Administration


Maybe lock the previous thread?

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I was under the impression that this orginization first and foremost main goal was to guard the legalization of the e-cig? Seems like that is the number one prority as anything else is mute if they are not legal to import or buy?


Sun

 

[Darkest]

Yes, what Sun said.

 

[webtaxman]

I was under the impression that this orginization first and foremost main goal was to guard the legalization of the e-cig? Seems like that is the number one prority as anything else is mute if they are not legal to import or buy?


Sun

It is about our rights. If I am wrong Sun, please let me know, but I am sure you have stated we do NOT have a right to vape, and never did. I disagree. Rights are taken from citizens through legislation. All reduced harm products are under attack. Snus is a distant second to E-cigs. We are against government taking our rights from us. It IS ALL about our "rights" and remaining FREE TO CHOOSE for ourselves.

 

[jwhite]

I was under the impression that this orginization first and foremost main goal was to guard the legalization of the e-cig? Seems like that is the number one prority as anything else is mute if they are not legal to import or buy?


Sun

I'm with Sun on this point, CASAA went from the idea of being an activist group to... well I'm not sure what exactly. My impression of what CASAA is turning into, and what Eric's original ECO concept was, are completly different IMO.

 

[mtndude]

I agree with both points. The current state of the Mission Statement is broad and reflects the consensus of the group (anyone with an opinion).

Personally, I would like to see the Mission Statement more specific to Personal Vaporizers (PVs), but there seems to be disagreement on how biased the organization should present itself. I don't think that anyone is in disagreement on what it is that we are trying to preserve, defend, or uphold. But if we alienate those outside of our community that subscribe to the scare tactics of the FDA, then we are missing an opportunity to do the things that are, more specifically, described in the current draft of the Objectives and Goals.

In my opinion, it's not enough to disagree, we need specific objections and proposed changes.

 

[katink]

Won't you be caught on semantics with this mission statement? I can allready imagine 'Well, everyone DOES have the right to choose an alternative to smoking: not smoking' or 'sure, everyone has the right to choose anything. Of course, then there might be the fact that their choice isn't available or even allowed... but sure they may do the act of choosing'...

 

[Webby]

I was under the impression that this orginization first and foremost main goal was to guard the legalization of the e-cig? Seems like that is the number one prority as anything else is mute if they are not legal to import or buy?


Sun

Sun (et al)

If we've strayed from the original goal, then please help out with verbiage that will convey a sharper point to our spear.

The mission of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to defend the legality of electronic cigarettes and the consumer's right to choose other alternatives to smoking.

 

[mtndude]

The mission of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to defend the legality of electronic cigarettes and the consumer's right to choose other alternatives to smoking.

no objection here

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun (et al)

If we've strayed from the original goal, then please help out with verbiage that will convey a sharper point to our spear.

The mission of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to defend the legality of electronic cigarettes and the consumer's right to choose other alternatives to smoking.

Now that is a statment that says something---I am on board with that by Friend.

Sun

 

[jwhite]

Sun (et al)

If we've strayed from the original goal, then please help out with verbiage that will convey a sharper point to our spear.

The mission of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to defend the legality of electronic cigarettes and the consumer's right to choose other alternatives to smoking.

Sounds great Webby!

 

[RIMP]

Way to go Webby



RIMP

 

[Thulium]

I strongly disagree with this change. We are not specifically a legal activist group, and our biggest strength is technical resources, consumer advocacy, and cooperation between consumers and professionals. Although I believe we will do what we can to support political and legal efforts that keep personal vaporizers available, I don't think that "making e-cigarettes legal" is our central goal.

I believe in having a very broad mission statement that represents the ideal around which any of our efforts are formed. "Preserving the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective Smoking Replacements" speaks to our stance on the legal issues but the ideal still stands if e-cigarettes are banned or approved. "Defending the legality of electronic cigarettes" would render CASAA moot if e-cigarettes are declared legal, or it would make us the promoter of illegal products if the e-cigarettes are banned.

Considering the way that the FDA is moving right now, it is quite possible that the only way we may end up being able to vape legally is if we avoid the term "e-cigarette". Depending how things turn out, we might need to buy/sell personal vaporizers separately from the nicotine, and they may need to not look like analogs.

Also, consider the possibility that a better technology than electronic cigarettes could come along that we want to support. There's also the possibility that thanks to the FDA, a company like Pfizer or Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds could usurp the right to the name "e-cigarette" and we may or may not want to support the "e-cigarette" per se, but rather we would continue to defend the rights of consumers to choose ever safer and more effective smoking replacements.

Its really not about whether we do or don't support Snus or NRT's. As much as any given alternative is safer than smoking and more effective than quitting cold turkey, we support your right to choose it. "Virtual Reality" smoking with a personal vaporizer is currently the most complete replacement for the activity of smoking and therefore is the focus of most of our efforts, but I think it is hazardous to tie ourselves too closely to the legalization of a product that has not even been legally defined.

 

[dperino]

I strongly disagree with this change. We are not specifically a legal activist group, and our biggest strength is technical resources, consumer advocacy, and cooperation between consumers and professionals. Although I believe we will do what we can to support political and legal efforts that keep personal vaporizers available, I don't think that "making e-cigarettes legal" is our central goal.

I believe in having a very broad mission statement that represents the ideal around which any of our efforts are formed. "Preserving the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective Smoking Replacements" speaks to our stance on the legal issues but the ideal still stands if e-cigarettes are banned or approved. "Defending the legality of electronic cigarettes" would render CASAA moot if e-cigarettes are declared legal, or it would make us the promoter of illegal products if the e-cigarettes are banned.

Considering the way that the FDA is moving right now, it is quite possible that the only way we may end up being able to vape legally is if we avoid the term "e-cigarette". Depending how things turn out, we might need to buy/sell personal vaporizers separately from the nicotine, and they may need to not look like analogs.

Also, consider the possibility that a better technology than electronic cigarettes could come along that we want to support. There's also the possibility that thanks to the FDA, a company like Pfizer or Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds could usurp the right to the name "e-cigarette" and we may or may not want to support the "e-cigarette" per se, but rather we would continue to defend the rights of consumers to choose ever safer and more effective smoking replacements.

Its really not about whether we do or don't support Snus or NRT's. As much as any given alternative is safer than smoking and more effective than quitting cold turkey, we support your right to choose it. "Virtual Reality" smoking with a personal vaporizer is currently the most complete replacement for the activity of smoking and therefore is the focus of most of our efforts, but I think it is hazardous to tie ourselves too closely to the legalization of a product that has not even been legally defined.

as well intentioned as you are, i respectfully point out that the product in question isn't illegal either. i do agree that using the term "e-cigarette" has its disadvantages (my vote goes for "personal vaporizer") i would submit to you that this process should be complete as of today. reason being, the association has a working document that can be revised with time, with subsequent rationale reported to members (having a say in how its developed?), and to those interested. secondly, the association needs to begin taking action steps, thus creating a presence beyond the website (although a good start) needed to happen, like yesterday.

the process in developing the association has, thus far, not been haphazard. consideration has been paid to various items that i view as being irrelevant to this cause, but that's my take on what this thing should be. while admirable, deference to other products takes much away from the disposition of personal vaporizers, a notion that may not be too attractive to many pv users. lastly, while the overarching cause may be freedom of choice, in terms of the right to use pv's it may be an overstep of reach, and at the least deters from what many may have perceived as a threat to that one narrow issue.

all said, precious time is being wasted on this process. it seems to me that as is (with the addition of "e-cigarettes" by webby) what more be accomplished in terms of a workable mission at this point? what's the status of membership details? who's handling public/media relations and how is that accomplished? will there be local chapters to respond to state actions? on and on. thanks.

 

[dragonpuff]

I just wanted to pop in and say that i love the final draft of the mission statement, especially with webby's addition! great job everyone!

I haven't been around much lately, i've been forced to back off on the campaigning end due to a massive exam crunch (it certainly doesn't help that i haven't been studying much all quarter!). When i do come around it's mostly just when i need a break it's tiring. Hopefully after my exam on monday things will calm down a bit (well, until the next round of exams in a few weeks 8-o) and i'll be hanging around more.

Thank you all for your work on this, you guys have been splendid i'm really looking forward to seeing this organization up and running.

This is exciting

 

[Darkest]

This is awesome. Good job Webby. I like that a lot and think it conveys our purpose perfectly.

 

[webtaxman]

as well intentioned as you are, i respectfully point out that the product in question isn't illegal either. i do agree that using the term "e-cigarette" has its disadvantages (my vote goes for "personal vaporizer") i would submit to you that this process should be complete as of today. reason being, the association has a working document that can be revised with time, with subsequent rationale reported to members (having a say in how its developed?), and to those interested. secondly, the association needs to begin taking action steps, thus creating a presence beyond the website (although a good start) needed to happen, like yesterday.

the process in developing the association has, thus far, not been haphazard. consideration has been paid to various items that i view as being irrelevant to this cause, but that's my take on what this thing should be. while admirable, deference to other products takes much away from the disposition of personal vaporizers, a notion that may not be too attractive to many pv users. lastly, while the overarching cause may be freedom of choice, in terms of the right to use pv's it may be an overstep of reach, and at the least deters from what many may have perceived as a threat to that one narrow issue.

all said, precious time is being wasted on this process. it seems to me that as is (with the addition of "e-cigarettes" by webby) what more be accomplished in terms of a workable mission at this point? what's the status of membership details? who's handling public/media relations and how is that accomplished? will there be local chapters to respond to state actions? on and on. thanks.

All good points dperino, and I'll only address what I bolded. I understand the need to "get things going forward, but altering the mission statement is exactly what we would have to do if the FDA prevails, and that could happen Monday. So then what do we do? We look dumb, with no direction quite frankly. To include e-cigarettes in the statement, knowing we may have to change it, or at least the wording because they MAY become illegal, either way, it is quite a different statement. We will look like we are unorganized and could have non profit status and the State charter revoked by making such a change. I don't really see how we can go further when we need to decide what to put on the legal and IRS documents. It's kinda frustrating, I get that. But we are stuck. I also understand how you may think this is "time wasted," but it has to pass the smell test before using any statement. Remaining too broad is a problem, and too narrow is a problem. Any mention of e-cigarette will make the statement narrow. I would feel real dumb if the day after all the documents were filed, Judge Leon rules in favor of the FDA. Then what?

I think frustration is setting in, that's normal, but we don't even have a statement we can modify right now, if needed, without looking like a bunch of amateurs. We can role the dice and go with what we got, or we can try to work it out. How about everyone write their own mission statement, and we vote on it, just like the name was voted into existence. Whatcha think? Webby? We can get past this, but I understand it should not be taking this long. It is because this is freaking complicated! LOL.

hmmmm...

To protect, defend, promote, and in every manner, preserve and support our right to use smokeless alternatives and other harm reduction products. These rights and products include, but are not limited to, the right to choose the use of e-cigarettes over tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarettes, of all the smokeless alternative available and legal now, face the largest threat to our rights and freedom to choose alternatives due to recent and ongoing FDA actions, and the litigation opposing the FDA in response to their actions. Our mission shall be accomplished by_______ ______ _________ ___________ compiling a "****load educational materials in one central location. This is an all out effort to keep smokeless alternatives legal while protecting our rights to use these products in the current "anti-free to choose" economic climate. CASAA is all for change. We do not support the changes that attack us, and the products we all prefer to use.

Okay, that obviously will not make it to print, but it only took me 3 minutes. Yes, mission statements should be short and sweet; that doesn't mean they have to be, and that is part of the reason we may be limiting ourselves and getting no where, and fast.

The only other information I can offer is to know that the IRS does not prefer a short and sweet mission statement, nor do any State Secretary of States for Incorporation. We could actually have 3 different mission statements, as long as they do not stray to far from each other. I don't know how many characters are allowed in the fields for the online submission to the IRS and the State Incorporation process, but it is a god idea to use a many of those characters given. The website's mission statement can be short and sweet, but by no means weak as it is out there for attack by those attacking us.

Vote? Will somebody else give it ago at a mission statement? No? Yes? Oh hell, I'm not just rambling on for nothing am I? Don't answer that! 8-o

 

[Webby]

While the mission statement is undoubtedly important, it is by no means the entire thrust of our organization. As tedious as it may seem, I have always liked the idea of the vote and perhaps we can put several on the list and vote on them. This can go on until we actually file, although I would hope by that time everyone would feel they had their voices heard. We can "agree to disagree" on certain points and connotations of verbiage, but I truly hope everyone involved will agree that the core purpose of this group is to do everything we can to keep e-cigarettes legal.

That said, fear not - the wheels are moving and the debate over the Mission Statement isn't the only duck being lined up to make all this happen. I have admittedly been distracted recently on business, but the web site will be opened to several Content Admins later next week, so please check it often. As always, your comments are what drive CASAA so please post them in the threads here on ECF.

I would also like to open the floor (forum?) for recommendations to the board. Nominations will be received until by Midnight, October 4th, 2009 at which point all potential board members will be contacted and asked if they would serve if elected.

The list will be posted online and users will have one week to cast votes via the web for their candidate(s).

Note: Board Members MUST be willing to provide their real names and contact information. (The IRS isn't exactly going to buy that we are a valid entity with member names like "fluffybunny241" or "ecigzZmoker")

I realize that there are many e-cig users who are not on this forum or do not read ECF regularly, so for them please tell any e-cig users or suppliers you know that they may also email their recommendations to board@casaa.org

 

[mtndude]

"Eliminating the arguing point", as one wise person suggested, by replacing electronic cigarette with personal vaporizer seems to be the consensus, thus far.

My observations have been that manufacturers of liquids have already begun to explore ways to reclassify the industry by offering alternatives to nicotine liquids. e.g. vitamin e-liquids. The word electronic cigarette could easily become taboo, as it relates to marketing and promotion of these devices.

Also, if my understanding is correct, the term "electronic cigarette" could become a copyright of one of the manufacturers, which would make us, apparently, extremely biased.

My point being, we are not necessarily trying to defend the electronic cigarette, as much as we are trying to defend a specific alternative to smoking, vaporized delivery of nicotine.