noncombastible is good, but smoke-free is simpler.
maybe, as sugggested i think by webby, include 'legal' before 'right'
CASAA - Organization
- Thread starter mtndude
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
noncombastible is good, but smoke-free is simpler.
maybe, as sugggested i think by webby, include 'legal' before 'right'
ps: also nominate DVap. I'm thinking here of an extra category - science - being somewhat different from medical; someone who can dissect experimental procedure and separate good science from bad.
When the FDA come out with a new report, it needs someone with an excellent understanding of scientic method to see any flaws so that atimely response can be made.
When the FDA come out with a new report, it needs someone with an excellent understanding of scientic method to see any flaws so that atimely response can be made.
Last edited:
I agree that "potentially safer" is the terminology that should be used in the objectives, but I'm comfortable with "safer and more effective replacements" because "safer" is a relative term and it communicates the perpetual nature of our mission: Right now we're trying to keep e-cigs legal, but after that we'll still be promoting not only e-cigs but research into making them....well... safer and more effective. 
The mission of CASAA is to defend the rights of consumers to choose and use smoke-free alternatives to tobacco while empowering and preserving the freedom of those consumers to safely and effectively pursue their preferred choice of noncombustible smoking replacements.
Did I leave anyone out?
Seriously though, it's amazing how appealing the original statement in the current draft is starting to appear.
Did I leave anyone out?
Seriously though, it's amazing how appealing the original statement in the current draft is starting to appear.
Last edited:
mtndude!
The mission of CASAA is to defend the rights of consumers to choose and use smoke-free alternatives to tobacco while empowering and preserving the freedom of those consumers to safely and effectively pursue their preferred choice of noncombustible smoking replacements.
Did I leave anyone out?
Seriously though, it's amazing how appealing the original statement in the current draft is starting to appear.
Heh. It probably goes without saying, but I think we're looking for something with a tad more "short and sweet". I'll also restate that I don't think that tobacco, cigarettes or e-cigarettes should be mentioned specifically in the mission statement because because of potential conflicts as the 'drug/device combo' vs 'tobacco product' debate is resolved in the court. It's likely that in order to avoid a ban, e-cigarettes may need to be legally deemed a "tobacco product" and we don't want to be stuck in the middle deciding if we support "alternative tobacco products" or "alternatives TO tobacco products".
This is actually what I mean in the "smoking replacement" thread. If we isolate the activity of smoking and are claiming that we are replacing it with a safer and more effective virtual replacement--whether or not the replacement uses nicotine or even a low temperature vaporizer--we take the "drug/device combo" or "tobacco product" debate off the table. It doesn't have to be either, it's simply a replacement. If you choose to make your e-cig a more effective (but possibly a little less safe) replacement by using nicotine infused liquid, that can be debated in the courts if it is a recreational drug, homeopathic remedy, or a "traditionally marketed" tobacco product.
IMO, PVs should be subject to UL (and potentially FCC with the smartchips and lithium batteries) safety testing and the FDA should have nothing to do with them. Seperately, nicotine infused e-liquid should be subject to FDA regulation as a tobacco product (under the new tobacco bill, so flavoring sold seperately) or listed as a homeopathic drug (if nicotine or another ingredient that is not derived from tobacco) or sold without nicotine (along with other flavored fog juice).
Last edited:
I keep gunning for short and sweet variants but seem to get shot down on each try. Here's another try:
CASAA's mission is to empower consumers to choose and use effective smoking replacements.
I don't have any major qualms with that if I can't get buy in on:
CASAA's mission is to support and defend(1) the consumers right to choose(2) safer and more effective(3) smoking replacements.
1. "Empower" is a cute buzzword and I kinda like it, but at the same time "support" and "defense" seem like more accurate descriptions of what we'll actually be doing. The advantages and disadvantages of buzzwords vs more mundane are obvious. I don't know if I even care either way.
2. Personally, I kind of think the internal rhyme of "choose and use" is a bit redundant and off-putting--if you choose a smoking replacement, your intent to use it is implied.
3. Once again, I support the use of the relative descriptors "safer and more effective" as they communicate our ongoing mission to make safer and more effective virtual "smoking" experiences available
.
Last edited:
I completely agree with your point 1.
Re point 2 and "if you choose a smoking replacement, your intent to use it is implied", I feel the opposite, i.e. that the ability to use something implies the ability to choose it but not v.v. Many people choose things they never end up using - how many of us end up garage selling that stuff? And that's before allowing for the very rich who choose stuff they never subsequently even notice, much less use. OTOH, people cannot use something unless they also have the ability to choose it. (Excepting cases where only one choice exists of course.) Still, I've been called on this before and I'm happy to accept a "choose and use" phrasing. I'm not quite happy with an exclusivly "choose" wording, to me that does not imply use and does not imply a number of things I'd like CASAA to be involved in such as "how best to use", vs. CASAA supporting only the legal ability to choose to use.
Re point 3, "safer and more effective", I've been convinced by the arguments in this thread regarding "safer" that it it should not be in the mission statement. It seems to me that it should be definitely be in our goals but that it should not be a tenet expressed by our mission statement.
Another attempt:
CASAA's mission is to support and defend the consumer's ability to to choose and use effective smoking replacements.
(Vs. my previous attempt CASAA's mission is to empower consumers to choose and use effective smoking replacements.)
One other thing to consider in addition to your numbered notes is the use of "empower consumers" or "consumer's ability" vs. your suggestion of "consumer's right".
My take on this is that the phrasing "consumer's right" and even the word "right" is best avoided. I think that the word "right" is debatable in the context of vaping, and worse that it may trigger knee-jerk hostile responses from people who might otherwise be open to alternatives. It seems to me best to avoid the word "right".
This is actually a pretty serious issue and I can see it both ways. However, I used the phrase "consumer's right to choose..." specifically because I felt like we should embrace consumer rights issues in general as that should be our core value:
We believe that people have a RIGHT to choose safer and more effective smoking replacements. Public health and safety issues may compel a community to ban smoking, but a tobacco ban is unreasonable without a 100% safe and effective replacement. Unless and until there is a 100% safe and effective replacement for smoking, we will support and defend the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective replacements. (namely: electronic cigarettes)
Here's a variant on the latest suggestions:
CASAA's mission is to support and defend consumer freedom(1) to choose and use safer and/or(2) more effective smoking replacements.
1. It seems that it would be harder to make a case against consumer freedom than it would be against consumer rights.
2. Would it be too awkward to use and/or to avoid the impression that safer and more effective can't be separated?
I'm going to disagree on this, at least in part. You start getting too many chefs in the kitchen, so to speak. We can combine medical/science if need be, but most physicians have some ability to decifer scientific studies, at least as they pertain to human health (some better than others). Many physicians are also researchers, or have had some past experience in research.
The arguments for the wording of the mission statement are going in circles.
I am now going to be redundant and quote myself.
You can go back and read the responses/opinions here.
Safer and more effective are both arguing points and subject to varying interpretations. Any version of those two words will create issues, starting with what testing has been done, and, as of today, ending with the screaming fact that there is no peer-reviewed study to back up either safer or effective. Plenty of anecdotal evidence....
I again present the following mission statement:
The mission of the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to preserve the consumer's right to choose alternatives to smoking.
I still support having the RIGHT to choose, freedom works too, but, here in the US, there is a thing called the Bill of Rights. I just like having the right to be free to choose.....
I guess the above makes this my $.06
I am now going to be redundant and quote myself.
You can go back and read the responses/opinions here.
Safer and more effective are both arguing points and subject to varying interpretations. Any version of those two words will create issues, starting with what testing has been done, and, as of today, ending with the screaming fact that there is no peer-reviewed study to back up either safer or effective. Plenty of anecdotal evidence....
I again present the following mission statement:
The mission of the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to preserve the consumer's right to choose alternatives to smoking.
I still support having the RIGHT to choose, freedom works too, but, here in the US, there is a thing called the Bill of Rights. I just like having the right to be free to choose.....
I guess the above makes this my $.06
I'll, possibly, be out of the loop for a week beginning Sunday, dependent upon internet availability on my vacation.
I'll support this statement, if not present to vote on an alternative, if a vote is needed. I believe that all the debate over the mission statement has done nothing but help our collective understanding of what CASAA is aiming to achieve, and I'm proud to be a part of this.
Also, I would proudly stand behind any of the nominees when elected to CASAA's board.
As the science (and the medical side) will be a key area of contention, I think it best to have a representative from both.
Medical people might not have such a good grasp of experimental procedure as a chemist.
Surprised to see opposition on this. I think we need to be strong in this area, so 2 is better than 1.
LOL Yup. This is a new circle. But back to where I liked it.
I simply cannot see using the word "replacement" (although I know the reason). If we want to use "replacement" then, IMO, the name should be CASRA. Safe, Safer, Effective--all no-no's IMHO. It is only asking trouble. Also, many of the other statements completely left out those who still wish to smoke tobacco, AND vape. They are not mutually exclusive.
I say let's go with Kam's last statement. It leaves room for modifying down the road. I support it 100% FWIW.
Onward to the next step in the outline?
My 2 billion pesos
Safer, better, more effective, those sound kind of like words we see here on ECF all the time. But "safer" hasn't been proved, or disproved. Patches gums and the rest are "safer", so why not e-cigs? The Juice part, of course, because it could be "user choice" of nicotine strengths being used. So safer has to go.
More effective? Well, seems that a a couple thousand people here have gone 0 nic. I'd say that's pretty effective, but to quantify that to any statistically acceptable number is imposssible.
Better, subjective as heck.
You're right. How about something simple (my way of thinking, simple) like "widely accepted" by thousands, can easily be proven just by reading a few thousand threads voluntarily posted by satisfied users. And I do think it is the "consumers' right" to choose is proper, we do have the right, nothing is "illegal" here as of yet. It just hasn't been approved, which is two different things.
More effective? Well, seems that a a couple thousand people here have gone 0 nic. I'd say that's pretty effective, but to quantify that to any statistically acceptable number is imposssible.
Better, subjective as heck.
You're right. How about something simple (my way of thinking, simple) like "widely accepted" by thousands, can easily be proven just by reading a few thousand threads voluntarily posted by satisfied users. And I do think it is the "consumers' right" to choose is proper, we do have the right, nothing is "illegal" here as of yet. It just hasn't been approved, which is two different things.
Last edited:
- Status
