ALEC, Bills and Ecigs

[aikanae1]

Unfortunately, in the case of laws that are submitted against e-cigs, it's not rhetoric. In the vast majority of cases, Democratic politicians are the driving force to get e-cigs banned.

I'm going to ask you the same question; Then where are the bills coming from? The timing, content suggest they are not being written independently. So where are they coming from?

I think that's kind of important. i'm not saying these things to cause trouble. Something is not adding up.

BTW, Obama isn't liberal. He appoints many Republicans to head agencies and his staff. Obamacare was Romneycare. Ever hear of "Blue Dog Democrats"? They were started by a Republican.

 

[aikanae1]

I couldn't make out if you were saying that CASAA is aligned with one political party, or if you were just using it as an example. In the event that you believe CASAA is politically aligned, I can assure you that's not the case. You will hear political talking points from CASAA members (like myself) and board members, but those are personal opinions and don't reflect the organization as a whole. Myself, I am NPA (not party affiliated) and I'm left-leaning on many social issues, but I understand that the issue of e-cigs is a much harder fight on the left side of the isle than the right. Why is that? I'm not sure, but I think it's because the GOP was already in major support of the tobacco industry long before e-cigs even hit the scene.

With that said, I tend to agree with the concern over ALEC and the way they do things. Especially since the major drug companies sit on their board and we already know that they have been the most vocal opponent to e-cigs. I just find it difficult to believe that at some point the drug companies in ALEC won't step in on this fight (if they haven't already), and while the proposed legislation may be tempered by the other members, it likely still won't be in the interest of the e-cig consumers.

Whether CASAA is politically aligned or not, the perception being given is that they are. Let me explain. Remember Smoker's Rights? It was one of a number of "grassroots" campaigns to fight anti-smoking laws that thinly veiled BT creation and support. It also began a traceable timeline linking BT with Republicans and conservative think tanks. I personally remember Smoker's Rights and as soon as I figured out they were associated with BT, I wouldn't have anything to do with them.

Many of the reasons used against CASAA is the fact they are percieved to be aligned with BT against regulation and it's such that CASAA isn't even given a chance to defend itself otherwise. ALEC, Republicans and BT are percieved to be in bed with each other. This is NOT my opinion. This is the reasoning I've read to dismiss comments made by CASAA.

I did not post in here to cause trouble. However I felt my posting was hyjacked from reasonabe discussion by throwing around unrelated terms, political rhetoric that had nothing to do with the original post. My instinct was to let it die. It's a turn off and effectively ended the conversation without having any additional understanding of where these bills are originating and what to do about it. I realized maybe I could do better if I could do nothing else than pointing it out.

The largest political party in the US is independent. They typically have a low threshold for party politics and bickering that goes along with it.

When I look at some of the "liberal" user generated think tanks, regulation of ecigs is even less popular than it is in here, and it's just as passionate as it is in here. The politican's supporting it are on thin ice. Regulation is NOT supported. So why hasn't CASAA taken advantage of that? That is the perfect example of how out-spoken bias can be self-limiting.

I'm left with the question of where is this legislation coming from if it's not through ALEC and Republican's? I think that's a question that should have been asked and answered a long time ago for effective advocacy.

I believe the pen is mighty. I was going to attempt getting some of the positive reports and articles more widely spread. ECF is a PUBLIC forum and easily referenced. Oops. The frequency of labeling, name calling and blanket assumptions immediately delegitimizes anything else that's said. Because of ONE paragraph Bill Godshall included (and I highly respect his opinions) makes his entire post a worthless opinion. That kind of thing may fly on FOX news, but it doesn't anywhere else.

I can't defend CASAA against the perception they are aligned with BT. That's not my opinion, but I can't defend them against that misperception when the political rhetoric is so thick. I can't help but assume their are additional polictical motives when a "grassroots" organization has their head so far up one political party's a** that they can't see 80% of their potential support is being alienated by their short sighted rhetoric.

I've been impressed by CASAA testimony when I've watched videos - so why is it so dam*ing in here?

Like I said, my immediate reaction was to drop this thread as hopeless when it was hyjacked and devalued into political rhetoric, like most threads and probably not contribute much anymore. That means I probably wouldn't put much behind supporting CASAA because it appears they have other political agendas that i'm not sure of.

 

[aikanae1]

aikanae1 wrote:

Everything in my posting was objective and factual.

Smokefree Pennsylvania and I have spent about ten thousand hours and thousands of dollars since 2008 working to keep e-cigarettes legal to sell, buy and use (by opposing more than a hundred different proposals to ban e-cig sales and/or use).

Perhaps aikanae1 can inform us how many bills (to ban e-cig sales or use) he/she actively opposed and defeated.

The FDA appointees (Josh Sharfstein and Margaret Hamburg) who illegally banned and lied about e-cigs in 2009 were appointed by Obama (Sharfstein now works for MD Gov O'Malley and previously worked for Henry Waxman), and more than 95% of proposed state and local legislation to ban e-cig sales and use have been sponsored by liberal Democrats).

The postings by aikanae1 are defending public officials who have been campaigning to ban e-cig sales and use.

Please don't misunderstand. I did not come here to cause trouble and I respect your opinions highly. My question is that if ALEC is not behind these bills then who is? I've done some preliminary research and I do not find a "liberal" orginazation on the level of ALEC.

I think understanding where these bills are being written and the overall agenda would be crucial to effective advocacy. That's what I had hoped to discover since it's a question I assumed you'd have the most insight on.

Basically, ALEC promotes pro business legislation, and is largely Republican. That's why leftist Bill Moyers (who I know and respect on several issues) and left wing socialist Democrats disdain ALEC.

I've also discovered that popular "liberal" support is not with the politican's introducing these bills. In fact the opposition from "liberals" is just as passionate and strong as it is in here, maybe even more so since there is an additional anti-corporate sentimate as well as a personal freedom aliance. This is where I see having a predetermined bias maybe blinding and self-limiting grassroots support. The terms and methods maybe different, but the goals are similar. I think another generalization has been that democrats tend to be "spineless" in the face of popular support. What could be the worst thing for BT and BP and the FDA but a combining of popular forces on both sides of the aisle?

However, in just that one paragraph above, your polictical generalizations devalued your previous statements from being quotable in other press media. Those statements may pass on FOX, but they don't anywhere else. Instead they prevent defending CASAA in a larger arena against accusations of being in bed with Republicans and BT (Smoker's Rghts?) since ECF is a PUBLIC forum that has been frequently sourced before. This is not my opinion but a key arguement from organizations (mainly health) that are pushing for regulation.

I felt like you hijacked this thread with political rhetoric that ended any futher discussion. That's an immediate turn-off and my instinct was to drop it. I still have no answer as to where these bills are coming from and now I'm in doubt about a "grassroots" organizations agenda when it's so comfortable alienating populations outside of it's political sphere.

My instinct was to drop the thread and probably not post or pay attention to this section again. I am not interested in red vs. blue because I don't believe in it. If anything, I think a divide is too convienent for the few to get whatever they want. I refuse to believe other forum members or my neighbors are the enemy.

I do think CASAA does excellent work and I've been impressed with the testimony I've seen on videos from those sent by CASAA, many times with better legislation and definitions that officials can insert directly into their bills. It seems rather obvious that officials don't write their own regulations or legislation. So where are these bills coming from?

I've seen a number of health organizations implied as a source, but I am not aware of them writing legislation or organizing on the level that ALEC has for decades. These bills are far too sophisticated. It took more time for the anti-smoking groups to gain this much ground - and I know you have insight on that issue.

All I ask is to tone down the political rhetoric that tends to divide the public. By doing so it would make your comments far more quotable to the general public and a source for media - which is what I think you deserve. These bills tend to be about protecting health and safety which should be non-political. More vapers might pay attention if they don't see EVERYTHING degenerate into politics.

PS. Most "liberals" do not consider Obama a "liberal" since he tends to adopt GOP policies and appoints Republican's to key positions, i.e. Obamacare was first Romneycare. If anything, he points out the fact that the majority in the US are neither right or left, but in the middle - and tired of political generalizations and bickering.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Whether CASAA is politically aligned or not, the perception being given is that they are.

We're not and I'm not aware of any politician or journalist who has accused us of being politically aligned.

Many of the reasons used against CASAA is the fact they are percieved to be aligned with BT against regulation and it's such that CASAA isn't even given a chance to defend itself otherwise.

CASAA proudly angered RJR lobbyists by opposing their tax bills in South Carolina and Oklahoma, and additional bills in North Carolina and Rhode Island that would've impacted access to e-cigarettes.

When I look at some of the "liberal" user generated think tanks, regulation of ecigs is even less popular than it is in here, and it's just as passionate as it is in here. The politican's supporting it are on thin ice. Regulation is NOT supported. So why hasn't CASAA taken advantage of that? That is the perfect example of how out-spoken bias can be self-limiting.

Sadly, I'm not aware of a single liberal think tank in the United States has endorsed e-cigarette use. Yes, maybe liberal-leaning online forums are positive on e-cigs, but many liberals are positive about ending the federal War on Drugs and there is still extreme resistance to the idea among mainstream Democrat politicians.

I'm left with the question of where is this legislation coming from if it's not through ALEC and Republican's? I think that's a question that should have been asked and answered a long time ago for effective advocacy.

Nearly all anti e-cigarette legislation has been lobbied for by the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Heart Association, acting on the advice of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

I can't defend CASAA against the perception they are aligned with BT. That's not my opinion, but I can't defend them against that misperception when the political rhetoric is so thick. I can't help but assume their are additional polictical motives when a "grassroots" organization has their head so far up one political party's a** that they can't see 80% of their potential support is being alienated by their short sighted rhetoric.

Just to be clear, as much as I love Bill, he doesn't represent CASAA. He is a trusted adviser and his views are those of Smokefree Pennsylvania. As far as I know, CASAA has never used the word "liberal" in a Call to Action or press release, and we don't take sides in political fights. We align ourselves with those who believe in harm reduction, regardless of party affiliation.

 

[Stubby]

This is where government and corporations get together behind closed doors. Some have called it "corruption".

It is also a pretty good definition of Fascism. The tobacco control act of 2009 which is what gave the FDA authority over tobacco was in reality written by Altria (tobacco) and tobacco free kids (a front group for BP) to protect corporate interest. It had little to nothing to do with protecting public health.

I understand the point you are trying to make. It is very important to stay neutral and not turn this into a right/left issue. There are to many people who want to do just that with a childish anti-government, anti-tax, anti-democrat, etc, agenda that goes well beyond the issue of vaping and THR. Besides that I'm not seeing any voices on the right that are actively supporting THR. Many of the local laws that are being pushed end up losing when it is explained just what the real issues are. In many cases these are liberal democrats that are changing there views on vaping and turning against the corporate interest that are pushing these laws. These are grass roots democrats on a local level.

By pushing the idea that this is a left right issue we may very well lose a large base of support that gets turned off by the rhetoric.

 

[DC2]

If certain Democrat politicians would stop doing things like this it would help...

Turns out only three of these five jerks sent the previous letter...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...er-ix-fsptca-e-cigarettes-other-products.html

Although four of them and more were involved in this monstrosity...
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s1403

Co-Sponsors
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA]
Sen. John Reed [D, RI]
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN]
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO]
Sen. Al Franken [D, MN]
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]

Apparently Durbin and Reed decided to jump on board with the letter this time around.

 

[aikanae1]

We're not and I'm not aware of any politician or journalist who has accused us of being politically aligned.

CASAA proudly angered RJR lobbyists by opposing their tax bills in South Carolina and Oklahoma, and additional bills in North Carolina and Rhode Island that would've impacted access to e-cigarettes.

Sadly, I'm not aware of a single liberal think tank in the United States has endorsed e-cigarette use. Yes, maybe liberal-leaning online forums are positive on e-cigs, but many liberals are positive about ending the federal War on Drugs and there is still extreme resistance to the idea among mainstream Democrat politicians.

Nearly all anti e-cigarette legislation has been lobbied for by the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Heart Association, acting on the advice of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

Just to be clear, as much as I love Bill, he doesn't represent CASAA. He is a trusted adviser and his views are those of Smokefree Pennsylvania. As far as I know, CASAA has never used the word "liberal" in a Call to Action or press release, and we don't take sides in political fights. We align ourselves with those who believe in harm reduction, regardless of party affiliation.

Thank you for your response. I have a hard time reading the pro-regulation material because it makes me too angry. However, when I have, it has ALWAYS painted the opposition to regulation as being a front for BT. That's tough to defend because in the past there were strong ties between BT and "grassroot orgs" that opposed anti-smoking regulations. It makes it hard to argue against CASAA not being in the same position - I think independence, including on the legislative forum is critical.

Nearly all anti e-cigarette legislation has been lobbied for by the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Heart Association, acting on the advice of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.

That is who is saying CASAA is in bed with BT. Who is financing and organizing them? I'm sure they have a known history. There is a good chance that well-meaning politican's have given them a seat at the table for consumer/public advocates and if so, unveiling corporate ties and financing could end their crediability in a hurry. I think it's pretty clear that on the political front, that neither facts or public health are important. So what is?

I may be confused about Godshall's position since he is such an effective and outspoken spokesman. I think maybe the larger issue is that every single thread turns into a very tired rehashing of red vs. blue and generalities that does more harm than good when it comes to getting vapers and the public involved into understanding what's happening. Blanket generalities that inflame and divide do no one any good and distract from gaining productive support.

I don't know how it can be done, but allowing every thread to degenerate into a political debate turns me off from reading this forum and I know I have a higher threshold than many. I also find it worthless and a waste of time. I'm sure I'm not alone.

I've seen political issues like this before and just stating that a specific party takes such and such positions is largely meaningless. That could easily be a well coordinated marketing image that has nothing to do with reality other than providing a smokescreen because they know their position is unpopular. It's far more helpful to post voting records, finances (when known), past associations and other facts since the reality is much more like a chess match, with much of it behind closed doors.

Republican's have differences of opinions within their party and democrat's do too. It's important to know which ones to target that would have an understanding ear and why. I'm not seeing huge support on either side of the aisle and unfortunatley, by the time it makes it to public comments or voting, decisions may have already been made. It would be helpful to get in front of the wave before it crests. Meanwhile, public opinion is powerful. I don't think the public on either side of the aisle can be ignored or dismissed.

This is from another poster and I agree:

In many cases these are liberal democrats that are changing there views on vaping and turning against the corporate interest that are pushing these laws.

You betcha. That's one of the positives of "spineless" democrats. They are bendable to public opinion.

Whatever. My main intention of continuing this thread was to make a case that the political rhetoric needed to be toned down. Idk how to do it, but I think it's essential. Right now, if anyone looked at ECF as a source, which has been quoted in several articles, what they would see would support the "grassroots" being assocated with Republican and may include the assumption of BT's support. That's not my personal opinion, but I can see where that could get reaffirmed with every thread degenerating into political rhetoric without purposeful or useful disscussion.

I think that also alienates a large number of others from getting more involved.

​

 

[kristin]

The only time CASAA ever brings up party affiliations is to correct folks claiming it's conservatives or Republicans or "big tobacco" trying to get e-cigarettes banned. And in that case, we only say that it's been by and far Democrat politicians who have been introducing the bills, without comment about liberal or left ideology or practice. It was made clear to us very early on, in Illinois, that the ban attempts are being pushed by health organizations. CASAA director Julie Woessner was in the room and watched as sponsoring Sen. Terry Link, (D-Waukegan) turned to Kathy Drea, a lobbyist for the American Lung Association in Illinois, for guidance on "the ALA's bill." Multiple proposed bills afterward had exactly the same ALA language and were sponsored by Democrat legislators. Eventually, one or two came up sponsored by Republicans and we fought those just as hard.

Recently, as tobacco companies have been getting into the market, RJR has been sponsoring bills which would limit the e-cigarette market and CASAA has fought those, as well. It's never been about "picking sides" politically, just the simple fact that Democrats have sponsored most of these bills until recently.

To answer the question, no, the bills aren't the idea of most legislators. We know for a fact that they have been written for most of them by lobbyists for groups such as the ALA and ACS and RJ Reynolds. (I would say exceptions would be Hawaii and possibly New York and Utah. Those seem to have originated with lawmakers themselves, but only because I believe we don't have an obvious trail of breadcrumbs leading to a specific organization in those cases.)

As I've stated before when this accusation has been made, CASAA isn't in bed with ANY other organization, industry or political party. We have been across the table arguing against legislators in both parties, against health organizations and against the tobacco and e-cigarette industries to fight for CONSUMERS. Out of 10 directors, maybe 2 are Republicans, so the board as a whole obviously doesn't "swing to the right." We are pretty diverse with Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians, along with one or two independents. To say we have something "against" Democrats or try to push a specific (anti-liberal) political viewpoint on members is patently false.

As Greg already pointed out, you will not find any case where CASAA policy or official statements references "liberals" or "left vs. right" or allegiance to specific political parties or ideology. Bill is a respected advisor to CASAA, but he does not sit on the board of directors nor does he speak for CASAA. His political opinions have no impact on CASAA policy or actions. If someone wants to take a factual comment about most of the bans being sponsored by Democrats and twist that into a hidden agenda, I can only guess that has more to do with their own ideology or political sensitivity, because it certainly isn't true.

 

[kristin]

That is who is saying CASAA is in bed with BT. Who is financing and organizing them? I'm sure they have a known history.

You can see for yourself by looking at their contributors - pharmaceutical companies (mainly through "foundations.") But they get plenty of funding through the government and huge donations, as well. The ALA and ACS have been around a long time and have a lot of political and financial clout. They are quite organized and switching from anti-tobacco to anti e-cigarette is a piece of cake for them.

The "liberal's" don't have the same system of think tanks that conservatives do and it is much more grassroots-like. I really do think CASAA has been overlooking their support.

How can CASAA be overlooking their support? It's not like we have been approached by them or even been made aware of them. Who are these people? We don't even get support from "conservative think tanks." We'd take support where we can get it. It doesn't matter the political affiliations, so please stop making it seem like CASAA is purposely avoiding support based on political ideals. We are cautious of other types of affiliations. For example, we haven't taken donations from cigarette companies, nor have we sought them out. We also don't solicit e-cigarette industry donations.

 

[Bob D.]

I would never support ALEC myself.
I don't care where they stand on e-cigs.

 

[aikanae1]

You can see for yourself by looking at their contributors - pharmaceutical companies (mainly through "foundations.") But they get plenty of funding through the government and huge donations, as well. The ALA and ACS have been around a long time and have a lot of political and financial clout. They are quite organized and switching from anti-tobacco to anti e-cigarette is a piece of cake for them.

How can CASAA be overlooking their support? It's not like we have been approached by them or even been made aware of them. who are these people? We don't even get support from "conservative think tanks." We'd take support where we can get it. It doesn't matter the political affiliations, so please stop making it seem like CASAA is purposely avoiding support based on political ideals. We are cautious of other types of affiliations. For example, we haven't taken donations from cigarette companies, nor have we sought them out. We also don't solicit e-cigarette industry donations.

Thank you again. I'm not in here just to cause trouble. I tend to view the legislative forum as being largely CASAA based. I was probably wrong on that and other things.

What I have experienced here is that almost every thread by the third posting is diminished into rhetoric that isn't helpful or productive. I don't know how anything can be done about it since I think discussion is valueable. What the effect has been has resulted in turning people away from reading in here because it gets too political. My experience is that the vast majority of people have a low threshold for politics and it's alienating to them, even on a subject they are "addicted" to.

CASAA related or not, the legislative forum on ECF has become unusable for many.

 

[aikanae1]

You can see for yourself by looking at their contributors - pharmaceutical companies (mainly through "foundations.") But they get plenty of funding through the government and huge donations, as well. The ALA and ACS have been around a long time and have a lot of political and financial clout. They are quite organized and switching from anti-tobacco to anti e-cigarette is a piece of cake for them.

How can CASAA be overlooking their support? It's not like we have been approached by them or even been made aware of them. Who are these people? We don't even get support from "conservative think tanks." We'd take support where we can get it. It doesn't matter the political affiliations, so please stop making it seem like CASAA is purposely avoiding support based on political ideals. We are cautious of other types of affiliations. For example, we haven't taken donations from cigarette companies, nor have we sought them out. We also don't solicit e-cigarette industry donations.

No they aren't going to come to you. You go to them. Two locations to start blogging would be Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. They both offer RSS and there's a good chance of getting positive press or the attention of a reporter. There are numerous other locations as well that will appear. CRJ used to have a database for links that investigative reporters used that I hope CASAA would be listed in.

I've mentioned how essential voting records are, exposing past affiliations, financing. That sway's opinion. I assume you have facts behind ALA's support because I had no clue they were a front for a powerful lobby. I'm a cancer survivor so ACS support has thrown me. I'd need to do research into that claim unless CASAA already has it ready to go - if so, blog it and publish it far and wide. I've been impressed by the number of well done reviews (Medscape) yet those are missing from the debste. That can be a bomb for someone like Waxman (Union of Concerned Scientist's). Many of the progressive's are bendable to public opinion. Smoking is an emotionally charged public health issue, which is also a top concern. Hypocrasy would get picked up quickly as long as it was factual and referenced.

There is such a thing as "blue dog democrats" that were started by Republican's and tend to vote that way. I'm sure Republican's have their splits within their party too. This is why records are so important because it's hard to tell who is who much of the time.

I think for every smoker that quits, at least 5-10 non-smokers are affected as well. I think it's critical to bring them into the fold but that will never happen when conversations are distracted into red vs. blue issues. Both sides are critical of BT and BP. Any perception of a divide is a myth.

 

[kristin]

I assume you have facts behind ALA's support because I had no clue they were a front for a powerful lobby. I'm a cancer survivor so ACS support has thrown me.

From the Robert Wood Foundation site:

The program relied heavily on three major health voluntary organizations: the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They provided financial support and, in particular, funds to help lobbying efforts which the Foundation could not support directly. The SmokeLess States Program - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

In December 1971, the Foundation emerged as a national philanthropy, thanks to Johnson's bequest of 10,204,377 shares of Johnson & Johnson common stock, which translated into about $1.2 billion dollars. The Billion Dollar Hei$t - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation with over $8.8 billion in assets under management. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Private Company Information - Businessweek

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gets it's money directly from shares in Johnson & Johnson, which it says it then gives to organizations such as the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association to do lobbying for them. The more J&J sells, the richer the Foundation becomes. The more RWJF lobbies against the tobacco industry and demonizes tobacco and shames smokers, the more product J&J sells. Knowing the products are worthless to actually help a significant number of smokers quit and that tobacco will never actually be banned (indeed, the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association have actually lobbied against attempts for all-out bans - see North Dakota), the more patients they get to treat for cancer, emphysema, COPD and heart disease (where the real money is). And the executives of the American Cancer Society; the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association all get to keep their high-paying jobs (American Cancer Society: $913,126, American Lung Association: $262,144, American Heart Association: $843,779).

A must read, eye-opening expose of RWJF: The New Corporate America Business Model: Creating Foundations to Move Their Ideals...and Products

 

[aikanae1]

That is hugely helpful. It'll take me awhile to digest this but it sounds very good.

 

[kristin]

No they aren't going to come to you. You go to them. Two locations to start blogging would be Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. They both offer RSS and there's a good chance of getting positive press or the attention of a reporter. There are numerous other locations as well that will appear. CRJ used to have a database for links that investigative reporters used that I hope CASAA would be listed in.

Here's where the fact that we actually are a true grassroots organization shows.

Our outreach is our membership. We count on members to spread the word about our Calls to Action and tell people about CASAA and our mission - beyond the sphere of influence of the 10 volunteers who serve on the board of directors. Every member meeting, I remind (practically plead with) the members to post about us on Facebook groups and pages, on forums or online communities they frequent, blogs, comments on articles, in interviews, etc. If we have no presence in some places, it's because we need members to step up and start posting there (or we just don't have any active members who go to those places.) So, we need people who are active in those circles and care about the cause to join CASAA and start spreading the word about us. (Hint, hint. )

 

[rolygate]

CASAA related or not, the legislative forum on ECF has become unusable for many.

The problem is that almost by definition, legislation is about politics, so some sort of mention and then debate about mainstream political parties always comes in at some stage.

CASAA is purely a community activism association and that has been a difficult pill for opponents to swallow - partly because it has never been seen before. In fact they have been stunned by the way the user community has grown in size, grown in loudness, had simply amazing successes, and above all is creating an effect never seen before: the people demanding their health and rights are respected and even being listened to.

This is unheard of because all previous policymaking has played out between government and industry, often using front groups as proxies. The citizens have thrown a spanner in the works and this is unprecedented. The level of surprise and indignation at this development is hilarious to see; the upside of it that they continue to underestimate us because they cannot afford to 'legitimise' us within their own publications, therefore our size and influence is a continual surprise and shock to them as they themselves have to try and hide our existence. Next year there will be 5 million US vapers, the year after that maybe 10 million. And the traditional players will *still* be underestimating us: pharma is only just waking up to the fact that tens of millions of people will put a stop to their game, and is fighting a desperate rearguard action. It's like this:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Schopenhauer

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Gandhi

We're currently at halfway there and will be for some time. The final stage will take some time, but we'll get there as sure as eggs is eggs.

 

[aikanae1]

Here's where the fact that we actually are a true grassroots organization shows.

Our outreach is our membership. We count on members to spread the word about our Calls to Action and tell people about CASAA and our mission - beyond the sphere of influence of the 10 volunteers who serve on the board of directors. Every member meeting, I remind (practically plead with) the members to post about us on Facebook groups and pages, on forums or online communities they frequent, blogs, comments on articles, in interviews, etc. If we have no presence in some places, it's because we need members to step up and start posting there (or we just don't have any active members who go to those places.) So, we need people who are active in those circles and care about the cause to join CASAA and start spreading the word about us. (Hint, hint. )

I am not doubting CASAA is grassroots. What I'm saying is in the arguements for regulation from opposing forces has been claims saying those against regulation and bans are in bed with BT - which implies CASAA is included.

This is not my opinion but one I've read from org's like AHA, etc. is that groups opposing bans are in bed with BT. Many of those groups are PERCIEVED by the public and lawmakers as public health groups and give them a "seat at the table" to speak for the public. (Not my opinion) There is a good chance that much of the information lawmakers recieve are from those groups and some honestly believe they are good. I don't know if those opinions can be changed quickly - and I tend to think it's not practicle.

I'm trying to understand the dynamics;

The article states (assumed true) that corporations like J&J are gving funds to foundations like Robert Woods who then donates to groups like ACS, ADA and other public health groups to further their interests by writing laws and regulations.

At the same time, corporations like J&J are members of ALEC who also write laws and regulations to further their interests. ALEC also offers BP and BT opportunities to develop strateges in tandem.

It definatley puts J&J on both sides of the aisle. Both groups engage in lobbying.

So far I've seen FDA ignore positive reviews and studies from multiple sources, so I tend to doubt logic is going to win that war. I don't see many alternatives but to get involved with lobbying - taking a clue from J&J that it might be cheapest to buy preferred regulations.

These agencies may be affected by public opinion too - there's been a multi-year battle against regulating nutritional suppliments largely because BP wanted to turn them into prescriptions and so far the FDA and BP has lost. Nutritional suppliment manufacters/natural health industry are better organized, with deeper pockets than the vaping community has. They also participate in lobbying.

Reading about the revolving doors in D.C. with agencies, staffers, fellowships, interns was hardly new news. BP is a favorite for Rebulicans for more than a decade. Dem's tend to go towards hollywood. I think it was 2001 that oil industry execs developed national energy policy that opened the floodgates for every federal agency; FDA, DOJ, EPA, SEC, you name it and industry is writing the regulations for their own industry.

I don't understand the lobbying world, but I can't help but think that will be the arena where FDA deeming regulations will be determined.

​

 

[aikanae1]

The problem is that almost by definition, legislation is about politics, so some sort of mention and then debate about mainstream political parties always comes in at some stage.

CASAA is purely a community activism association and that has been a difficult pill for opponents to swallow - partly because it has never been seen before. In fact they have been stunned by the way the user community has grown in size, grown in loudness, had simply amazing successes, and above all is creating an effect never seen before: the people demanding their health and rights are respected and even being listened to.

This is unheard of because all previous policymaking has played out between government and industry, often using front groups as proxies. The citizens have thrown a spanner in the works and this is unprecedented. The level of surprise and indignation at this development is hilarious to see; the upside of it that they continue to underestimate us because they cannot afford to 'legitimise' us within their own publications, therefore our size and influence is a continual surprise and shock to them as they themselves have to try and hide our existence. Next year there will be 5 million US vapers, the year after that maybe 10 million. And the traditional players will *still* be underestimating us: pharma is only just waking up to the fact that tens of millions of people will put a stop to their game, and is fighting a desperate rearguard action. It's like this:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Schopenhauer

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Gandhi

We're currently at halfway there and will be for some time. The final stage will take some time, but we'll get there as sure as eggs is eggs.

My objection was to divisive language such as "leftist" and "socialism" or saying one party was "pro-business" without any context for making the statement. That immediately throws the conversation off topic and into political battering - with the alternative being to stop coming into the forum and being engaged. I can't count how many times post have degraded into non-productive battles over inane opinions that were totally unrelated or dropped from further discussion by hijacked off topic. And this was done from someone with a highly respected, well informed and influential opinions. It sets the tone for the entire forum.

I've participated on other forums that were intensely political on both sides of the aisle before. There's rules, stated or unstated that comments can't go off topic, unreferrenced or out of context.

5 million vapers is tremendous and I know the growth of the industry is too. They are messing with an alternative to an addiction which should feel like they were facing a raging heard of elephants if only 1/10th of vapers joined the battle. I also believe that for every smoker that quits, there are probably 2 - 10 other people that are close to them that are affected as well. That's a helluva lot of people.

So why haven't more joined? Nearly every single vendor online and in b&m's or local vape meets display membership information. It's impossible to get a better deal than free. I was interested in eliminating one potential barrier that might limit becoming more involved when I realized that I had stopped paying attention for the similar reasons. That's all.

Otherwise your preaching to the choir.

 

[Luisa]

It's political rhetoric like that which turns people off from getting involved and it's unnecessary.

This is NOT political rhetoric--it is simply the truth and it is factual.

 

[BuGlen]

This is NOT political rhetoric--it is simply the truth and it is factual.

Are you saying that political rhetoric (that which is twisted and exaggerated) for political gain is not based in some form of facts or truth? Just as an FYI, rhetoric (or rhetorical speech) is not synonymous with lies, but rather the art of discourse in which someone attempts to back up or sensationalize specific claims to support ideals. Most of the rhetoric in media today is either achieved by conveniently leaving out specific data on a subject that would otherwise weaken the authors point, or items taken out of context, or simply ignoring facts and relying on gut or faith based "truths".

Rhetoric is an art form that is practiced by both major parties in our beloved country, and it is laughable at best to see someone from one party line pointing the finger at the other party. But then, hypocrisy is another lovely trait rampant in our political landscape.