CASAA - Organization

[Webby]

After the voting is finished, and all Board members elected are comprised of only suppliers, would anyone have a problem with that?
Really not trying to be a troublemaker, just curious.

My answer later ;-)

ROFLMAO!

This is exactly why we are forming CASAA publicly, instead of behind the closed doors of vape-filled rooms...

Excellent point WTM, how about this:

I have about 15-20 "candidates" so far. None of them have nominated themselves (including me) - nor have they agreed to even BE on the Board - so this is all still, very much wide open...

What say:

• The CASAA Board shall consist of 12 voting members.
• Each Board Member has one, equal vote.
• The Board will be comprised of (no more than) three suppliers, three subject area directors and six general users.
• The six general users will be made up of individuals from all walks of life.
• The three Subject Area (SA) Directors will be comprised of experts in the field of Legal, Financial and Medical issues.
• Each SA Director will manage a team of users who will help in making recommendations to the Board and provide depth in the event that the SA Director isn't available or drops out.
• Additional COG bylaws to follow.

FWIW - Eric and Sun are naturals for one of the supplier slots and to head up Legal as SA Director.

Sun?

I'm calling you out.

Now is the time for all good men to come to aid of their country...

 

[mtndude]

Sounds really good, Webby.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

ROFLMAO!

This is exactly why we are forming CASAA publicly, instead of behind the closed doors of vape-filled rooms...

Excellent point WTM, how about this:

I have about 15-20 "candidates" so far. None of them have nominated themselves (including me) - nor have they agreed to even BE on the Board - so this is all still, very much wide open...


What say:

• The CASAA Board shall consist of 12 voting members.
• Each Board Member has one, equal vote.
• The Board will be comprised of (no more than) three suppliers, three subject area directors and six general users.
• The six general users will be made up of individuals from all walks of life.
• The three Subject Area (SA) Directors will be comprised of experts in the field of Legal, Financial and Medical issues.
• Each SA Director will manage a team of users who will help in making recommendations to the Board and provide depth in the event that the SA Director isn't available or drops out.
• Additional COG bylaws to follow.

FWIW - Eric and Sun are naturals for one of the supplier slots and to head up Legal as SA Director.

Sun?

I'm calling you out.

Now is the time for all good men to come to aid of their country...

Webby---Consider Sun in. Not to worry there. This time we are going to get it right by friend.


Sun

 

[eric]

I'm in. I'm going to Gloucestershire for 3 weeks tomorrow, but reaching me will be just as easy there as it is here. I'll keep you all informed.

Thank you for the nomination, it would be an honor.

 

[Mister]

Sounds excellent Webby! And Eric and Sun, it is great that you're ready and willing!

 

[nojoyet]

Sun (et al)


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

I like this statement.

 

[nojoyet]

Sun (et al)

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

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

Mission
The mission of CASAA is to support and defend the consumers' right to replace smoking with the widest possible choice of smoke-free alternatives.

I like this statement. However, I would suggest that we insert the word "tobacco" in front of "smoking" for the sake of specificity. We have people out there who insist that what we are doing is "smoking". Hmmm... and how about inserting "less harmful" between "of" and "smoke-free."

Reworded:
Mission
The mission of CASAA is to support and defend the consumers' right to replace tobacco smoking with the widest possible choice of less harmful smoke-free alternatives.

Good point Vocalek. I think if we use the word tobacco we could further reword to:
The mission of CASAA is to support and defend the consumer's right to replace tobacco smoking with the widest possible choice of noncombustible smoke-free alternatives.

 

[Webby]

...and so CASAA continues to gather steam...

• Jim Russo (our CFO) is ready and waiting for this forum to complete our bylaws to be written into the LLC and 501c NPO.
• Our corporate lawyer friends will go over the documents to provide CYA and make sure we are in compliance.
• The CASAA Board nominations are coming along well and should be placed into a voting queue next week.
• The website will be finished next week and CMS (content management system) Admins will be assigned then.

However Judge Leon decides, the mold has been cast and our efforts will continue. CASAA has far too much momentum to die and I thank everyone who has participated in the discussion to this point. Continued input is paramount to our success. Agree or disagree - voice your opinion!

CASAA is going through it's most painful process right now. We all must compromise in some ways in order to achieve the greater good. By keeping debates in an open forum, we continue to establish a sense of trust that everyone's opinion carries equal weight.

Whatever we become, this group is destined to be a constantly evolving entity. We will hold fast to our core beliefs and goals, but by remaining dynamic (and open to user's input), I am convinced we will be able to play a winning hand regardless of the cards we are dealt.

It's a basic belief that has worked for over 200 years.

 

[nojoyet]

What to call it?
Electronic cigarette. Thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I discovered such a wonderful thing had been invented. I would not have looked twice at the words personal vaporizer, electronic cigar or pipe. That is not true for everyone. It's probably best to alternate the use of personal vaporizer and e-cig. We could also call it an electronic nicotine delivery device (ENDD) which is descriptive and includes cigar, pipe and cigarette.

I support all the nominations in previous posts.

Re noncombustible, a word I really like and which helps to describe what we are advocating. More relevant now with T.Bob's wonderful video using Snus with the e-cig. T.Bob you are brilliant!!!

Done, I think. Feel like a ping-pong ball being bounced off so many times earlier and bobbing back and forth between posts.

 

[mtndude]

.....a tad of frustration at going in circles and not being able to access the board after I finish reading a page!

No doubt, Kamanjah. Hopefully, when the ECF changes servers, everything will be dandy.

Thulium started a new thread: Perpetual Ad hoc Meeting. (Res ipsa loquitur)

 

[Stubby]

Objectives:
1. To promote the study and use of safer and more-effective smoking replacements, in particular the Personal Vaporiser (aka 'e-cigarette') because experience and testing so far shows it has the most promise.
...

Do you have some hard evidence of this to support the above statement. I think if you ask that question to the hundreds of thousands of people in Sweden and Norway, and the folks over at the snuson.com forum you may get a good deal of disagreement.

I have given up on the CASAA as to being an unbiased education and advocacy group for all reduced harm products. The lean towards e-cigs is just to great. But at least try and keep within realm of reality.

 

[Territoo]

In regards to the use of the terms "safer" and "effective" in relationship to vaping over smoking, someone WILL demand we prove it. I propose the use of "potentially safer and more effective" because no one (not even the FDA) has proven that PV use is unsafe to use or ineffective as replacement to smoking or even smoking cessation. Too much is unknown about the e-cig use to make any kind of statements about safety and efficacy as of yet.

Since one of the goals is public education, then we must educate ourselves first. As a fledgling organisation, CASAA may not be able to do much initially, but as we grow, we will have the potential to learn more about this prdouct that we support. The more we know, the stronger our stance will be.

First steps would be extensive literature review on other smoking alternatives and their safety. There is going to be very little written about the e-cig in medical literature (mainstream articles don't count), but by reviewing other research, it can serve as a starting point on the evaluation of the e-cig.

For this reason, although our focus is on the PV/e-cig, we must include all smokeless alternatives in the scope of the organization.

 

[mtndude]

I have given up on the CASAA as to being an unbiased education and advocacy group for all reduced harm products. The lean towards e-cigs is just to great. But at least try and keep within realm of reality.

Thanks, Stubby, for keeping us in check. It would be virtually impossible for us to even attempt to be unbiased without this sort of criticism.

 

[Mister]

I nominate Territoo to the board and to the position of Medical SA Director.

 

[mtndude]

I nominate Territoo to the board and to the position of Medical SA Director.

I'll second that!

 

[mtndude]

The mission of CASAA is to support and defend the consumers' right to replace tobacco smoking with the widest possible choice of less harmful smoke-free alternatives.

Seems like a good reference point for further discussion.

Given that the Objectives and Goals will further indicate our efforts, focusing on the e-cigarette/PV, I'm comfortable with the wording.

Also, I like the notion of including the word noncombustible, but to avoid redundancy in the mission statement, I would propose to include this, possibly, in the Objectives or Goals.

 

[madman3237]

I nominate Kamanjah to the board.

 

[kinabaloo]

I absolutely agree with this format. Although promoting PV's is our first and foremost objective, it is not the driving mission. If a technology comes along that is safer and more effective than personal vaporizers, I think it would be our obligation to support the consumer's right to choose it. Depending on the outcome of legal wranglings with the FDA, it may change the way we deal with e-cigarettes/PVs so that could impact our objectives but our mission should stay the same.

It is pretty much confirmed now that about half the nicotine in e-liquid is lost at the vaporisation stage (oxidation mediated); so PVs could be going ultrasonic at some time.

Present PVs are inefficient nicotine delivery systems, and have the potential currently to create some toxins (though in amounts I would consider relatively harmless). But in other ways pretty perfect considering what they replace.

Valved juice delivery and even valved PVs would be nice; plus a few other things. But I think the PV is basically here for the long-term.

But in any case, this arrangement of aims and goals seems good (and can keep most of us onboard

I would use terms like 'potentially less harmful' only in the objectives and not in the mission. Perhaps in a phrase such as 'promote research into potentially less harmful ...

 

[kinabaloo]

Do you have some hard evidence of this to support the above statement. I think if you ask that question to the hundreds of thousands of people in Sweden and Norway, and the folks over at the snuson.com forum you may get a good deal of disagreement.

I have given up on the CASAA as to being an unbiased education and advocacy group for all reduced harm products. The lean towards e-cigs is just to great. But at least try and keep within realm of reality.

That statement is not important, I later created a different version. I am happy, indeed proposed, mentioning any particular option only in objectives and not the mission.

I can differentiate my own ideas from what is best for the organisation.

In my personal view, the PV is generally best because it replicates more of the behaviour - but it is lacking in efficient nicotine provision. I am for freedom of choice above all.

Perhaps because of a more scientific background I don't feel as uncertain as many that long-term the PV might be found to be less than perfect. I am just about certain that the PV is at the least 100x safer than smoking. But at the same time there are a range of toxins involved, some almost unherad of to most people, but in very very small quantities. Basically, IMO the PV is safe; but I understand that we'd do best to not mention anything about safer until there are more studies published (just give it time).

 

[kinabaloo]

ps: I'd like to nominate yvilla.