Exactly!
As Tropical Bob's latest video shows, you can get nic with snus soaked in VG and inserted in a cart. If I can't get liquid, guess what I'll be trying!!
_____________
CASAA - Organization
- Thread starter mtndude
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Exactly!
As Tropical Bob's latest video shows, you can get nic with snus soaked in VG and inserted in a cart. If I can't get liquid, guess what I'll be trying!!
_____________
Here is more of a legal route which I admittedly stole from the Alliance of E-cigarette User's argument in their motion, and changed it slightly. This is an example of how being too narrow can be a problem. But I believe this can be changed and modified over time without looking dumb. 
I'm not married to it, but it address the fact that further legal action to ban these products is inevitable.
CASAA is a group consisting of consumers and retailers of electronic cigarettes (Personal Vaporizers). Our mission is to preserve our current choices of smokeless tobacco products - a right that is being eliminated by the efforts of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by improperly exerting regulatory authority over e-cigarettes. CASAA members are concerned that their right to choose a preferred delivery method of vaporized nicotine could be infringed, and can only lead to further infringement against other smokeless alternatives on the market. The vaporization of nicotine replaces the pleasure of traditional smoking with the very same pleasure by recreational use of vaporized nicotine. We aim to offer any and all factual information via an easily accessible central database. We further aim to assist, explain, and in every manner, educate those who intentionally, or inadvertently, misunderstand the effects and use of vaporized nicotine.
I'm not married to it, but it address the fact that further legal action to ban these products is inevitable. CASAA is a group consisting of consumers and retailers of electronic cigarettes (Personal Vaporizers). Our mission is to preserve our current choices of smokeless tobacco products - a right that is being eliminated by the efforts of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by improperly exerting regulatory authority over e-cigarettes. CASAA members are concerned that their right to choose a preferred delivery method of vaporized nicotine could be infringed, and can only lead to further infringement against other smokeless alternatives on the market. The vaporization of nicotine replaces the pleasure of traditional smoking with the very same pleasure by recreational use of vaporized nicotine. We aim to offer any and all factual information via an easily accessible central database. We further aim to assist, explain, and in every manner, educate those who intentionally, or inadvertently, misunderstand the effects and use of vaporized nicotine.
Ok, I like where this is going....
The black text above seems a little confusing, though. Might just be me.
Looks good - what I miss in there, and it should be there I think to make doing it possible/allowable as an organisation, is to do any activities (as Casaa) to establish and/or preserve the rights for obtaining and using the devices and substances needed.
I think, without this, that Casaa would be refrained from taking and organizing any real actions itself.
I think, without this, that Casaa would be refrained from taking and organizing any real actions itself.
You are right it is not well written. I was holding off fine-tuning while others submitted their mission statement, and/or critiqued others.
the pleasure of traditional smoking with the very same pleasure by recreational use of vaporized nicotine.
replaces the pleasure offered? given? received? from? traditional smoking by the/that? very? same pleasure offered? given? by recreational vaporization of nicotine.
I was trying to add two terms I read that wanted included in the statement: "Personal Vaporizer" wanted in, and so did "Replacement." Again, not married to this statement as is.
??
Last edited:
I didn't say the e-cigarette isn't legal, I said that it has not been legally defined. If the FDA gets a ruling in their favor and then manages to get e-cigarettes banned, what exactly is banned? All PV's? Just the ones marketed a certain way? Just the ones that include nicotine? Just the ones shaped like a tobacco product? Just the ones not sold by companies with pockets deep enough to get FDA approval?
Good questions all and the reason that I am suggesting the idea that our mission statement be kept short, simple, and specific only about our common ideal. Look at Starbucks' mission statement: "To inspire and nurture the human spirit— one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time." We all know that Starbucks "real" mission is to make money for their shareholders...but their stated mission broadly states their ideals, and making money from selling coffee is only one aspect of the company's business and really even though it is the focal point of their daily business it is just one means to the larger goal that every employee rallies their energy around--even the employees who really don't care whether the shareholders make money or not, they still care about "inspiring and nurturing the human spirit...one cup...at a time."
With that idea in mind, I would suggest this mission statement:
The Mission of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to support and defend the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective smoking replacements.
CASAA believes that consumers have a right to reduce or eliminate the inhalation of noxious chemicals in smoke on their own terms and that right is not waived if an individual chooses to continue the use of nicotine. CASAA believes that the community interest is served by the reduction of sidestream smoke whenever an individual chooses a smoking alternative. Therefore, CASAA believes that the right to choose safer and more effective smoke-free alternatives or smoking replacements should not be abridged by the FDA or their corporate sponsors and individuals should rather be encouraged to replace smoking with harm reducing alternatives like personal vaporizers marketed as "electronic cigarettes" with or without nicotine additives.
CASAA believes that consumers have a right to reduce or eliminate the inhalation of noxious chemicals in smoke on their own terms and that right is not waived if an individual chooses to continue the use of nicotine. CASAA believes that the community interest is served by the reduction of sidestream smoke whenever an individual chooses a smoking alternative. Therefore, CASAA believes that the right to choose safer and more effective smoke-free alternatives or smoking replacements should not be abridged by the FDA or their corporate sponsors and individuals should rather be encouraged to replace smoking with harm reducing alternatives like personal vaporizers marketed as "electronic cigarettes" with or without nicotine additives.
Last edited:
Oy.
We are going in circles. Would you be willing to define "smoking replacements" as it will be a "new term" not currently used today. Something like alternative smoking devices used to replace traditional tobacco cigarettes.
Alternative vs replacement--can be synonymous to some, No? Not sure.
Making any claim to effectiveness cannot be established. Any ideas to dance around that?
It's a short statement, something to build on, but hopefully not too much building as in more unnecessary words.
Not many people joining in, so maybe frustration has set in. Or maybe the majority wants to go with Webby's statement, and they are done with it. I think we can do better, but I too believe we all can agree to disagree.
I like Thulium's suggestion. But I think webtaxman may be right, perhaps frustration has set in and it is time to move on. There hasn't been a lot of input on this recently, it seems likely that the majority favor Webby's last version.
Thulium, one thing I'd want changed in your proposal is in "abridged by the FDA or their corporate sponsors" I hope the organization will eventually be international. The FDA reference is of course US specific. Perhaps just end that part at "abridged"?
Thulium, one thing I'd want changed in your proposal is in "abridged by the FDA or their corporate sponsors" I hope the organization will eventually be international. The FDA reference is of course US specific. Perhaps just end that part at "abridged"?
I am not only willing to define "smoking replacement" as a new term, I specifically used it with the underlying intention of staking a claim to the term for ourselves: The FDA has "nicotine replacement" nailed down, I am suggesting that "smoking replacement" is a more holistic view than simply replacing the drug with another form or attempting to change the function of the body attempting to break one drug addiction with the use of a different drug...we are attempting to replace the activity of smoking.
For the most part, yes. But rather than simply a smoke-free alternative, e-cigarettes can be used to completely replace the smoking experience with a virtual experience.
Absolutely. The most effective smoking replacement is the one chosen by the individual. Ronald Reagan replaced smoking with Jelly Beans, some people replace smoking with exercise, chewing gum, some people use smokeless tobacco products, and some people use FDA approved nicotine replacements...but the most effective replacement for smoking is likely to be a product that most effectively replaces the smoking experience so that is the product that currently best encapsulates our goal. Basically, I'm suggesting that "Smoking Replacements" is best exemplified by the e-cigarette, but it is not limited to just e-cigarettes...just about anything can be used as a smoking replacement, but we support the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective replacements (read: e-cigarettes)
I'll be a member of CASAA either way, but I believe the mission statement specifically should avoid endorsing anything resembling an existing product with questionable legal status because it means our organization's legitimacy is made questionable. Instead, my suggestion is to rally our membership behind a shared ideal. Using the term "smoking replacement" or any of my suggested verbiage is not as important to me as developing our own goal. I like the term "smoking replacement" because we can basically own it and even sculpt the term to further our agenda. (For example, I'm interested in having the term coined for homeopathic or holistic therapeutic use)
Last edited:
"I'll be a member of CASAA either way, but I believe the mission statement specifically should avoid endorsing anything resembling an existing product with questionable legal status because it means our organization's legitimacy is made questionable."
If ecigs are banned, wouldn't it still be a mission of CASSA to change that law? I personally would still hitch my wagon to an illegal product, because I know it is a better alternative. After all, isn't this the reason we are fighting for?
I think our legitimacy is strengthened if we do not succumb.
If ecigs are banned, wouldn't it still be a mission of CASSA to change that law? I personally would still hitch my wagon to an illegal product, because I know it is a better alternative. After all, isn't this the reason we are fighting for?
I think our legitimacy is strengthened if we do not succumb.
Not necessarily. If "e-cigarettes are banned", depending on what that means exactly, trying to change the law might be a waste of money. It might, for example, be easier to support the use of a smoking replacement that is functionally similar to an e-cigarette but marketed in a different manner (nicotine sold seperately, not shaped or painted to look like analog tobacco product, or simply re-packaged) than to get mired in a legal money pit. It's also possible that the FDA is trying to get companies like SmokingEverywhere tied down long enough for one of their sponsors like Pfizer or even a tobacco company to make their own e-cigarette...at which point we would need to decide if we are going to support the corporate e-cig or leave the smaller distributors to fight their own battle.
I honestly think this is an opportunity for CASAA to define ourselves while not having to wear the stigma that is obviously trying to be painted upon us. Specifically, the term "electronic cigarette" - any opportunity to separate ourselves from the word cigarette just seems like a good move, IMO.
"Personal Vaporizers" or "Electronic Vaporizers" just seem like a more accurate representation of what we are trying to defend.
Last edited:
It really is a question of semantics and probably personal preference that will get decided in a vote, and as such is really not that important to me but I'll defend my view to see if it resonates with anyone:
I see "electronic cigarette" as a marketing term...and one not very well conceived for a product that does not have FDA approval. "Personal Vaporizer" is better, but it sounds more like a medical device or gadget and doesn't really convey much of our intended us...to replace cigarettes. Maybe you would prefer "The Mission of CASAA is to support and defend the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective cigarette replacements."? I prefer "smoking replacement" to "cigarette replacement" simply because PV's can replace cigars or pipes as well.
The whole problem with the FDA, IMO, is because the non-vaping public does not entirely understand that despite their best efforts, smokers don't really want to quit. Eventually the physical, social, and financial burden of a smoking habit will convince you to try to quit, but the strongest hold that smoking has on us is the parts we'll still miss if we quit: The mental peace of the ritual, the familiar taste, the beauty of the swirls, the familiar feeling between your fingers, and of course the "cool" factor hasn't been eliminated completely. The FDA just calls it "tobacco pleasure", and thinks if we just treat the addiction to nicotine, nobody would want to smoke again. I beg to differ. PV's significantly reduce the physical, social, and financial burden while more effectively replacing the ritual, taste, look and feel of smoking. With a PV or e-cig, we don't have to "quit", instead we are empowered to break the nicotine addiction if we want by ramping to 0-nic juice but are still free to enjoy the ritual, taste, look and most of the feel by vaping.
I prefer the sound of 'alternative' but semantically 'replacement' is probably better as it has a sense of 'being better' / upgrading.
How about:
The aim of CASAA is to support the consumers' right to replace smoking with safer alternatives.
But this is not enough as there are already some 'safer choices' (gum, patch etc), so need to make as an aim also the defense of the widest possible choice of alternatives ... So perhaps:
The aim of CASAA is to support the consumers' right to replace smoking with the widest possible choice of smoke-free alternatives.
Defense of the PV in particular would then be a goal (rather than aim). So it is a definite policy stance, but one step down from the general aim. As a goal, it is a specific practical instance of the general aim.
How about:
The aim of CASAA is to support the consumers' right to replace smoking with safer alternatives.
But this is not enough as there are already some 'safer choices' (gum, patch etc), so need to make as an aim also the defense of the widest possible choice of alternatives ... So perhaps:
The aim of CASAA is to support the consumers' right to replace smoking with the widest possible choice of smoke-free alternatives.
Defense of the PV in particular would then be a goal (rather than aim). So it is a definite policy stance, but one step down from the general aim. As a goal, it is a specific practical instance of the general aim.
Last edited:
I see you have adopted exactly my point of view...Excellent. My plan for world domination is coming along nicely!
/Mr. Burns' voice
But seriously, I like that a lot. I completely agree that although defending the PV will be our primary goal, our continuous aim (or mission) is to improve our options for smoking replacements.
That said, I'll break down the verbiage I used and give my reasoning and people can decide for themselves:
"The Mission of CASAA is to..." Pretty straightforward, but I personally prefer "Mission" to "Aim", though I admit the distinction between "Aims" and "goals" is reasonable way to convey this. Aims vs goals or Mission vs Objectives. Same thing, effectively.
"support and defend" While I like Starbucks' choice of "inspire and nurture", it seems a bit 'flowery' for our purposes and because of the technical bent of our founding members "support" seems more appropriate and "defend" alludes to our legal, political, and social efforts.
"the consumer's right to choose..." I believe that the right to choose anything that is not inhaling thousands of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals is in fact a right that should not be abridged, even (or especially) if other tobacco products are outlawed.
"safer..." Even if we cannot state categorically that anything is completely safe, we have plenty of wiggle room to claim something is safer as it is a relative term. Likewise, I believe that we should support any effort to make e-cigarettes (or other alternatives) safer. For example, if there is a nicotine extraction or production technique that reduces or eliminates TRNA's from e-liquid, we should promote that technology.
"and more effective"..." Like "safer", "more effective" highlights the continuous nature of our organization's mission. We should not be satisfied with "e-cigarettes" or "personal vaporizers" in their current form. We are a critical and tech savvy group and I think we understand and agree that e-cigarettes are still a young technology that has a LOT of room for improvement. But again, the most effective replacement for smoking is the one the consumer chooses. As you succinctly stated, our aim is "for the defense of the widest possible choice of alternatives"
"Smoking Replacements" Originally I had used "smoke-free alternatives" or "smokeless alternatives", and I'm okay with either of those terms as they are included in our organization's name. However, I realized that this is an opportunity to coin a new phrase that we can "own" and therefore define for ourselves rather than waiting for the FDA or their corporate sponsors to tell us what exactly is or is not a tobacco product or drug/delivery device. Instead, I submit that we should embrace "Social Advocacy For Effective Replacement (SAFER)" (Yes, I just made that up) as our central mission. Although this overall concept is quite broad in allowing us to shift our focus if needs be on or off particular commercial products depending on their legal status, the core value is quite narrow and only truly encapsulated in products the FDA would want to call an e-cigarette even if it they are not as a matter of technicality.
Last edited:
I like the changes, but there are many of us who will say using "safer" and "more effective" is a death sentence. The first public attack will be: Prove it.
And we can't. Anecdotally? Maybe, but that's not good enough. This is the only problem I see.
And we can't. Anecdotally? Maybe, but that's not good enough. This is the only problem I see.
I see the possible danger in "safer".
But I don't see why "effective" can be a problem. It is not something we have to prove. We get to define what's effective. The organization's goals will establish a framework which implicitly defines boundaries for what might and might not be considered effective. Within those boundaries the organization's members make final determinations over time as to what they consider to be effective.
Of course it's a no brainer - it's safer because there is no combustion; and no ingredient is not GRAS.
Nevertheless, I removed both safer and more effective:
The aim of CASAA is to support the consumers' right to replace smoking with the widest possible choice of smoke-free alternatives.
Perhaps use them in the goals/objectives, something like: promote the study and use of safer and more-effective smoking replacements.
Nevertheless, I removed both safer and more effective:
The aim of CASAA is to support the consumers' right to replace smoking with the widest possible choice of smoke-free alternatives.
Perhaps use them in the goals/objectives, something like: promote the study and use of safer and more-effective smoking replacements.
I like it, kinbaloo.
Members who are reading this thread, don't hesitate to give opinions/suggestions. That is the thing we are in most need of.
Anyone wondering about becoming a member of CASAA, just join in the discussion. That's all we ask.
- Status
