There is discussion on safety, etc. on the General - TobaccoHarmReduction.org Forums site, as well as some excellent scientific information on the parent site.
CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smokeless Alternatives Association
- Thread starter Webby
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I checked out the site - it looks like a valiant effort although a bit dated. Lacey has an excellent fact library and I hope she'd be willing to upload it to the CASAA database as soon as my guys finish the SQL buildout.
Lacey?
Just a small point: it seems to me that one of the reasons that the PV is more successful in getting people to be smoke free is that it IS like a cigarette. While I try to use PV and vaping as much as posible, I don't see great problem in the term e-cigarette. For example, an e-car, or electric car, is easily understood as something radically different without needing to drop the word 'car'. I know that the connotations for cigarette are worse, but even so ...
The word to avoid is 'smoking'.
on the more general awkward issue, the PV stands apart from the other smoke-free products like patches, inalers, chantix etc - it is so much more effective that this is a big part of its raison d'etre. I can see the points for the other side of the argument, but currently lean more to advocacy of the PV rather than smokeless in general.
The word to avoid is 'smoking'.
on the more general awkward issue, the PV stands apart from the other smoke-free products like patches, inalers, chantix etc - it is so much more effective that this is a big part of its raison d'etre. I can see the points for the other side of the argument, but currently lean more to advocacy of the PV rather than smokeless in general.
Last edited:
Which is more important to everyone here, snus or e-cigs? Are you really willing to expend your money, time, and energy to keep snus on the market? I think that would make this a support group for BT and I have a hard time seeing where they NEED the support.
I thought this group was going to be a voice for e-cig users advocating the right to vape, not to do snus, etc... If you decide to continue to align with BT products I will not be a participant.
I thought this group was going to be a voice for e-cig users advocating the right to vape, not to do snus, etc... If you decide to continue to align with BT products I will not be a participant.
I guess the point comes down to this: it makes sense to support a principle moreso than a single option.
But, are all the options in the same class? I think that would be hard to argue. The one alternative, other than e-cigs, that would gain most support - snus - is possibly the most harmful (though safer than smoking to be sure). And why would we not be supporting patches say if that fits the supposed remit?
I vertainly would support a health freedom organisation, but that is really a separate issue for a different organisation, because that would take in so much more - freedom to choose one's own treatments no matter what orthodox (profit centers) dictate.
But, are all the options in the same class? I think that would be hard to argue. The one alternative, other than e-cigs, that would gain most support - snus - is possibly the most harmful (though safer than smoking to be sure). And why would we not be supporting patches say if that fits the supposed remit?
I vertainly would support a health freedom organisation, but that is really a separate issue for a different organisation, because that would take in so much more - freedom to choose one's own treatments no matter what orthodox (profit centers) dictate.
Last edited:
I mean no offense, but I really think you are worrying about this a little too much. Just because we support alternatives other than PV's/e-cigs in principle does not mean they have equal time and treatment in our efforts. The vast majority of our efforts I am certain will be directly related to PVs/e-cigs, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies and we may find ourselves progressing the PV movement indirectly by showing some support for other specific alternatives or "smoke-free alternatives" in general.
Basically it's just too early to tie ourselves down too much. Depending on market conditions, we might need to make significant shifts in our strategy over time. For example, we might actually need to focus our efforts on a very specific product...I don't think PV's are done evolving so a year from now we may or may not want to be supporting "e-cigarettes"...several years from now, perhaps there is something that is not an PV or e-cigarette at all that we decide we want to support.
Within five years, we'll either have succeeded in making e-cigarettes a widely successful harm-reducing alternative or it will have fallen into underground DIY usage--either way we'll still want to "preserve the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking" but we probably won't be talking about e-cigarettes anymore.
Last edited:
Realisticly, the PV will evolve but not change that greatly.
If forced to choose between an inhalator with nicotine and an e-cig with no nic, i'd choose the e-cig; as much as I (believe) i like the nic. The act and the fog are big parts of the enjoyment that the other alternatives just don't offer.
I can envisage the organisation getting into difficulties in the future by being too broad in scope.
I feel i've said my piece on this now. Improvements to the e-cig will occur, but it will still clearly be an e-cig. There might be some safer chantix-like drug or fast acting patch and such, but i really have no interest in that type of product. It;s not just about getting off smoking; but also about being free to vape as a safe and enjoyable activity. That makes it different.
If forced to choose between an inhalator with nicotine and an e-cig with no nic, i'd choose the e-cig; as much as I (believe) i like the nic. The act and the fog are big parts of the enjoyment that the other alternatives just don't offer.
I can envisage the organisation getting into difficulties in the future by being too broad in scope.
I feel i've said my piece on this now. Improvements to the e-cig will occur, but it will still clearly be an e-cig. There might be some safer chantix-like drug or fast acting patch and such, but i really have no interest in that type of product. It;s not just about getting off smoking; but also about being free to vape as a safe and enjoyable activity. That makes it different.
If we get "too broad" it would be in the form of "too many" different projects, not because projects are spanning too many topics or supporting too many different products. I believe we have a consensus view that most of our support for products that aren't PV's is mostly a matter of principle. Except in cases where a majority of members demand action, our support of other alternatives to smoking will mostly be in the form of acknowledgment and comparative study.
Basically, we aren't going to pretend that e-cigarettes are the only alternative that exists, but personal vaporizers are what the majority of members are here to support so we expect most of our active promotional efforts will concern PVs. I also think that any political or legal action should serve the rights of users of all types of smoking alternatives to avoid "duplication of effort" or having to start over because of some technicalit.
If we got a bill passed that protected citizen's rights to "e-cigarettes", I'd hate for it to be rendered moot if your PV doesn't have an orange LED. On the other hand, if the FDA is successful in banning "e-cigarettes", our efforts might be better served by promoting PVs under a different banner and ditching our connection to what the FDA calls a drug/device combo. For that matter, we could end up needing to distance ourselves from Nicotine altogether and we would be left to suggest using PVs with some other nicotine product
I still think Big Tobacco has plenty of support without our help.
Our focus needs to be (IMO) maintaining our right to vape, otherwise we loose it.
Our focus needs to be (IMO) maintaining our right to vape, otherwise we loose it.
I completely agree, all I'm saying is that in my opinion the best way to maintain our right to vape is to appeal to the common ideal of consumer rights as they apply to multiple products, not just the e-cigarette in particular and not necessarily just personal low-temp vaporizers/atomizer in general. With the FDA, a paradigm shift in PV/e-cigs is coming if we like it or not. We might need to relent to a cartridge or disposable e-cig for them to be safe enough to handle the nicotine laced juice, or we might need to make efforts to separate the vaporizer from the juice...whatever we need to do, we need to be ready to roll with the inevitable punches.
not to mention the prospect of e-cigs becoming illegal.. at least we wouldn't be considered an outlaw/underground organization (perceptually).
could CASAA be infiltrated and taken over by the Snus community? I'll only say "I doubt it."
would CASAA accept donations from BT? If not, I guess we couldn't be considered unbiased...
would CASAA lobby on behalf of BT? My guess is absolutely not.
am I "pissing in the punch bowl"? I kind of feel like it.. but all these questions are going to come up.
could CASAA be infiltrated and taken over by the Snus community? I'll only say "I doubt it."
would CASAA accept donations from BT? If not, I guess we couldn't be considered unbiased...
would CASAA lobby on behalf of BT? My guess is absolutely not.
am I "pissing in the punch bowl"? I kind of feel like it.. but all these questions are going to come up.
Last edited:
I'll throw out some ideas here. You can take-em or leave-em.
As far as I'm concerned you're splitting hairs if you think the debate is about snus verses e-cigs verses whatever.
For me the central idea is "reduced harm tobacco/nicotine" products, in whatever form that may take. That's what the public needs to be educated on. The public debate up to this point has been largely around the "quit or die" approach. Smokers and the public at large need to know there is another way. It very unclear to me as to what exactly you're trying to accomplice with this if reduced harm isn't THE central theme.
If you're trying to make it an advocacy group for e-cigs, I got news for ya, you may be days, or even hours away from being officially banned in the US. Where does that leave you!
By going with a central mission of reduced harm first, and whatever products that may be second, it gives you a lot more flexibility. You can go where ever the market takes you.
I don't care who makes whatever I may be using. If R. J. Reynolds or PM makes a reduced harm product that works for me, I'll use it. I'm not about to get into some politically correct debate about it. When it comes down to my health, that's all nonsense.
Okay, I've said my piece. You can take it or leave it.
As far as I'm concerned you're splitting hairs if you think the debate is about snus verses e-cigs verses whatever.
For me the central idea is "reduced harm tobacco/nicotine" products, in whatever form that may take. That's what the public needs to be educated on. The public debate up to this point has been largely around the "quit or die" approach. Smokers and the public at large need to know there is another way. It very unclear to me as to what exactly you're trying to accomplice with this if reduced harm isn't THE central theme.
If you're trying to make it an advocacy group for e-cigs, I got news for ya, you may be days, or even hours away from being officially banned in the US. Where does that leave you!
By going with a central mission of reduced harm first, and whatever products that may be second, it gives you a lot more flexibility. You can go where ever the market takes you.
I don't care who makes whatever I may be using. If R. J. Reynolds or PM makes a reduced harm product that works for me, I'll use it. I'm not about to get into some politically correct debate about it. When it comes down to my health, that's all nonsense.
Okay, I've said my piece. You can take it or leave it.
Exactly, Stubby..
The evolution of CASAA is in the hands of those who are willing speak-up, educate and share experience relative to reduced harm alternatives. There is no secret agenda. It is comprised, as of now, entirely of ECF members, without exclusion. What more needs to be said?
Stubby, I wonder if you might be spy for "Big Snus"
The evolution of CASAA is in the hands of those who are willing speak-up, educate and share experience relative to reduced harm alternatives. There is no secret agenda. It is comprised, as of now, entirely of ECF members, without exclusion. What more needs to be said?
Stubby, I wonder if you might be spy for "Big Snus"
Webby - I just saw this! I apologize for my tardiness in response.
I am currently in the process of renaming the pdf's so they are all easily identifiable AND so that they can be uploaded properly. As soon as I have them all available, I will make them public on our server so that people can grab what they want and put them where ever. I have an obscene amount so there is a lot to do and I am also working on some content for the PSA Offer Thread so as soon as I get that project done, I will hopefully get the PDF's done in the next week or so.
Stubby, I wonder if you might be spy for "Big Snus"
LOL.... No, not a spy, but ha, if Swedish Match wants to send a few dollars my way, or even some EUs', I wouldn't turn it down.
Seriously though, I started with e-cigs, which led to research into reduced harm, and the word snus kept popping up like a whack-a-mole, which led me to try it, which I took to like a duck to water. Goodbye cigarettes, hello snus.
Not quit sure why I hang out here. I guess I feel compelled to try and keep the discussion honest. It's not about e-cigs vs snus , etc. It's about choices. I likely do go a bit over the top at times.
Just because a ban is put in place doesn't mean it's the end; just a setback, though a big one for sure.
For legal reasons, e-cigs cannot be marketed as safer / reduced harm. What legal straightjacket bears on CASAA in this regard?
For legal reasons, e-cigs cannot be marketed as safer / reduced harm. What legal straightjacket bears on CASAA in this regard?
Indeed. And it will set a direction for CASAA going forward. If the FDA prevails with the preliminary injunction, or even if not, an appeal by either party is eminent. Then we have the separate actual complaint. There will be enough e-cig related issues that will define what we are all about (Snus, BT, Etc). Hopefully, during this legal process, we can provide the information necessary to those willing to seek the truth, or just answers maybe. Expert witnesses? Okay, I'm reaching with the last
Someone previously just posted some very tough questions of which CASAA will eventually have to take a position. Hopefully, we will take prudent stances one at a time, as they develop.
Webby: Are the members to date solely from ECF? I would hope not.
Not by a long shot. (remember, I'm a user and a supplier) Most of my wholesale site customers are ECF members or store owners, but pretty much all the retail buyers (from SEO efforts and label branding) have never heard of this forum unless I've told them. My customer base is primarily made up of older, middle class adults who really can't or won't follow the forum/BBS/Usenet style.
This may become a strong source of members for CASAA. I know several suppliers who flat out refuse to post links to this forum for fear of losing sales to wholesale suppliers. (How are you gonna keep 'em down on the farm...?) I can't wholey blame them, self preservation was my initial concern too.
By NOT allowing advertising or banner sponsors (one member-one vote) perhaps other suppliers will take the similar initiative to post their own "call to arms" to their own customer bases. We could
easily hit thousands of members as no suppliers would be threatened with "instant competition" like they might if they directed their customer straight to ECF.
I get a lot of web clients who want to know how to advertise on the web. It's easy. You don't. Spamming your client list isn't the way to go either. CASAA has to offer something valuable, different and non threatening before any supplier will petition their bread and butter customer base to join.
That is a whole 'nuther challenge before us. If we are going to be a cohesive force of both users and suppliers we have to all see each others side on every issue. You don't have to agree, just be sensitive to their right to have their opinion and hopefully we can all meet on the most important issues.
Please continue - if this turns into a mutual admiration society (yeah, right) this "Great Experiment' has failed miserably.
Last edited:
Lacey,
GREAT! Would there be any issue in mirroring your library page on CASAA? Primary links would all come from wherever you store them, but in any DOS attack, we can easily switch over to dozens of mirrored servers all over the world.
I'd like to do the same with BigJimW, KB's site and dozens of other web sites and databases here. All simply copies of what is hosted elsewhere (full credit to their owners of course) but available on a network of servers (think ARPANET)
We did this with SITA and the airlines back in the 80s when I ran MTA-IC on Usenet and actually had to go back and manually destring the WAN when Homeland Security took over after 9/11. It had long been defunct and outdated but still pulled current mirrored copies of 37 airline sites decades after it had been replaced by newer networks.
It's the ultimate "anti-eggs-in-one-basket" scenario. I'm not saying we'd ever need that kind of cyberterror redundancy...but wouldn't be a pain if we ever did?
I'm not advocating CASAA stealing anyone's thunder - just providing a backup of the links and document libraries should those sites ever go down.
- Status
