ECO - Organization Charter: Administration

[Webby]

Hey look what I found on the floor! The topic of this thread!

Here's is what we have so far:

Mission:

The mission of the _________ is to inform, educate and promote and preserve the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking. It is an unbiased, non-profit organization dedicated to the advocacy of its members and their rights.

Objective:
_______________ is a non-profit coalition of consumers and industry professionals working together to educate the public about the real risks and potential benefits of smokeless alternatives. It is the group’s goal to publicize research and support harm reduction technologies, as well as provide and support political and legal causes that preserve consumer freedom.

Organization Goals:

1. To inform and educate the general public as to the available options for tobacco alternatives and provide documentation to reputable medical and news items.
2. To maintain a web-based community for individual users and their shared experiences with these products by testimonials, photos and multimedia clips.
3. Formation of a collective voice for the urging of more positive political, medical and legal representation of the electronic cigarettes and smoking alternative community in congress, the medical community and the media.
4. Serve as User’s Advocate in efforts to discourage the sale of personal vaporizers and supplies to minors.
5. Support manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to stringent standards such as:
   • Providing documentation and safety information to their customers.
   • Fair and legal advertising or marketing claims on packaging, and web sites
   • Requirements that purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
   • Reporting attempts of illegal sales to minors to the proper authorities.
6. Establish guidelines for responsible, fair and ethical business practices that manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers are required to maintain in order to receive group approval.

I'm not sure about #7 -

Act as a consumer protection support center for products and services that do not adhere to ethical practices or demonstrate true representation of products.

Do we really want to set ourselves up as the "Online BBB" for vendor/customer issues? I can easily see us getting bogged down trying to play global internet arbitrator for every online purchase gone awry. Carrying a "Seal of Approval" seems like it would be enough to prove a site was in good standing with the group.

Anyone have additions to the goals list?

 

[seminolewind]

Webby, hey, I really like the mission statement you found on the floor! What luck!

I don't think this mission statement should be a BBB either. But maybe one of the statements should be something pertaining to retailers that abide by ethical practices.....

And to add to this mission statement something about a support system or group for those who have accidentally quit smoking cigarettes.

 

[mtndude]

Ok, I vote for Webby as interim president, web designer, editor, public affairs...

Seriously though, it's shaping up nicely and I agree that a seal of approval is enough. Consumers would be the effective enforcers of whatever the standards are to be.

wish i had more to add

 

[dragonpuff]

I think the mission statement is coming along swimmingly, nice job!

As for #7, i agree that it could open us up to being the BBB for the industry 8-o. Imagine, email after email of disgruntled customer woes expecting you to be the middleman because they think that will be more effective than complaining directly to the company that sold them a dead atty! Again, 8-o!

Personally, i think #'s 5 and 6 cover the business end quite well. Instead of dealing with customer complaints, people can simply refer to our site for a list of ethical vendors. Then if anyone has a complaint about a particular company, we can resolve that by pointing to our list

But seriously, it looks great! And i like seminole's idea about acting as a support group for those who want to abstain from cigarette smoke... could that be the new #7?

 

[webtaxman]

Hey look what I found on the floor! The topic of this thread!



I'm not sure about #7 -

Act as a consumer protection support center for products and services that do not adhere to ethical practices or demonstrate true representation of products.

Do we really want to set ourselves up as the "Online BBB" for vendor/customer issues? I can easily see us getting bogged down trying to play global internet arbitrator for every online purchase gone awry. Carrying a "Seal of Approval" seems like it would be enough to prove a site was in good standing with the group.

Well Webby, NRTs and the makers and approvers thereof,
do not adhere to ethical practices or demonstrate true representation of products.

Sorry I can't think of anything to add here, but at least somewhere on the website the following should appear?

We maintain no position regarding FDA approved Nicotine Replacement products.

I can't even imagine setting up a link to NRTs. We could provide their success rate, but by promoting NRTs with a link, is well, promoting NRTs, not useful information. And new users will be directed to statements and products that do not adhere to ethical practices or demonstrate true representation of products.

The ECO has integrity. No?

Rip away everyone, I'm cold blooded, and look forward to further thoughts, ideas, and discussion. Just be quick about it.

 

[Mister]

I like it Webby, great job! And I agree with everyone so far that #7 should stay off the list.

 

[Thulium]

All that #7 is stating is that we will have an objective set of standards for businesses to receive the "seal of approval". Nobody is advocating that we become the better business bureau--I'm saying that our endorsements need to be objective and consistent. We should not be e-cigarette promoters operating under the guise of a political action committee, we need to be consumer rights and health advocates who endorse the e-cigarette because it conforms to the ideals and standards of the organization.

Receiving the seal of approval needs to mean more than just being one of the companies that has enough "juice" with the voting members to snatch an endorsement. The seal of approval needs to mean that the product, service, or related business endorsed is consistent with our values. Basically, if a company, product or service supports the "consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking" it can get the seal of approval.

We're not the BBB, we're Consumer Reports.

 

[MrKai]

New here, please tolerate, gonna try to keep it brief.

In general:

We are all quite passionate about this...and sometimes with passion delusions of grandeur creep in

That said:

Keep the focus simple, narrow, manageable. Start with e-Cigs/vaping...grow from there.

I am NOT comfortable with claims of safety. While there is evidence to support this position, is it *scientifically conclusive* enough yet? e-Cigs are very likely less harmful if used and manufactured properly...and I think going further than that is not only asking for trouble, but also shows a lack of objectivity.

Education and advocacy are a much easier sell...the path of least resistance is well-traveled.

The goal here, at the end of the day, is to protect and preserve what we already have and a narrower focus with an air of objectivity is probably the better path to travel here. Being a bit more agnostic makes potential participants a part of the solution; a stance of "here is what we know about Product X, the history, the regulation, etc...and here is what we know about product Y.

While I know from reading many, many of you would prefer a "strong" message my advise is to walk the Middle Path. It is a slippery slope from having a forum for public education and debate with a bit of bias in general and a whole LOT of confirmation bias between the lines and well, a fringe group such as those that wish for Marijuana to be legalized in places where it isn't, if you catch my drift.

As I said before, it is tempting in our position to be a "strong voice in favor of " but a much more risky strategy towards long term success. Let the Trade Group do that.

My 2¢ x 50,

-K

 

[MrKai]

We're not the BBB, we're Consumer Reports.

Yeah. The Consumer Reports angle is indeed a fine one.

How's this for Number 7:

"Act as a clearinghouse for information about products and services that adhere to ethical practices, high standards of quality and demonstrate true representation of products intended for consumers."

Always better to present a positive instead of a negative. I'll read over the others after my nap to see if they would present better inversed, if needed.

-K

 

[Thulium]

Well Webby, NRTs and the makers and approvers thereof,
do not adhere to ethical practices or demonstrate true representation of products.

That is an excellent example. My point all along is that we need to start objectively holding to the ideals of the organization, rather than blindly endorsing a particular product. I'm not saying we should support FDA endorsed NRT's, but inasmuch that ANY nicotine replacement/addiction therapy/smoking alternative preserves the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective smoking alternatives: If Snus isn't substantially safer than smoking or it has low smoking cessation success rate, then it should not be endorsed by this org...but if it does then we should support it.

I can't even imagine setting up a link to NRTs. We could provide their success rate, but by promoting NRTs with a link, is well, promoting NRTs, not useful information. And new users will be directed to statements and products that do not adhere to ethical practices or demonstrate true representation of products.

I do not recommend promoting any particular nicotine replacement, smoking cessation, or any other product unless it is consistent with our stated mission. I would suggest that products like the FDA endorsed NRT's that we may question the safety or efficacy should be viewed in comparison or combination with PVs, for example.

I fully agree with MrKai's rewrite. To be honest, I wasn't really satisfied with all of the wording I had for the last couple points...was still cleaning them up.

 

[Thulium]

But seriously, it looks great! And i like seminole's idea about acting as a support group for those who want to abstain from cigarette smoke... could that be the new #7?

I'd tacked it in with #4:
"Enjoin existing efforts to discourage the use of nicotine products by minors and actively support individual efforts to break chemical dependencies."

Regardless of your views on rivers in Egypt and the "a-word", there are varying opinions on the "best" way to deal with a dependency. Some people feel that continued use of Nicotine is an acceptable choice, and some people want to break any dependency...not so much "quit or die", but at least "quit", so to speak. This is why I keep emphasizing the ideal of consumer choice. If you don't want to quit, you have the option of reducing (or eliminating?) harm with the e-cigarette. If you do want to quit, however, the e-cigarette may or may not be the best choice...and we should support people on BOTH sides of that fence.

 

[MrKai]

If Snus isn't substantially safer than smoking or it has low smoking cessation success rate, then it should not be endorsed by this org...but if it does then we should support it.

My gut here is that anything to do with *tobacco proper* is a wrong road to travel...the message will be drowned out by allegations of being in bed with tobacco companies.

Think this through; tobacco companies, you know , the people that make cigarettes, make things like snus, dissolvables, etc.

Are we really interested in these sorts of products? RJR et all have more than enough resources to push their tobbacco-based cigarette products. The greater the distance the better or "Guilt by Association" will be a dark cloud hanging over this endeavor from Day Zero.

Not to be a sad clown here, but I were I already not hanging around these parts, admittedly up until now, silently, I would have some reservations if anything to do with tobacco was attached.

Hence my statement of keeping narrow enough to stay off the slippery slope

-K

 

[Thulium]

Keep the focus simple, narrow, manageable. Start with e-Cigs/vaping...grow from there.

I am NOT comfortable with claims of safety. While there is evidence to support this position, is it *scientifically conclusive* enough yet? e-Cigs are very likely less harmful if used and manufactured properly...and I think going further than that is not only asking for trouble, but also shows a lack of objectivity.

I have to disagree with you here, and in a way you contradict yourself a few sentences later later...

The goal here, at the end of the day, is to protect and preserve what we already have and a narrower focus with an air of objectivity is probably the better path to travel here. Being a bit more agnostic makes potential participants a part of the solution; a stance of "here is what we know about Product X, the history, the regulation, etc...and here is what we know about product Y.

I think that if you "start with e-cigs/vaping" you are sacrificing objectivity. I think that we should start with a commitment to preserve the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking. For pretty much everyone here, e-cigarettes are certainly safer than smoking and they are far more effective alternatives to smoking than chewing something, or wearing a patch, or taking a pill...therefore, our focus is personal vaporizers. But our support for this or any product should be contingent on our dedication to the basic ideal, rather than having our ideals dictated by our dedication to a product.

 

[Thulium]

My gut here is that anything to do with *tobacco proper* is a wrong road to travel...the message will be drowned out by allegations of being in bed with tobacco companies.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. On the other hand, if our primary allegiance is to a product rather than to a consistent ideal, that also communicates a bedfellow relationship.

Right now it seems like a trivial difference, however keep in mind that in order for e-cigarettes to become accepted by the mainstream, eventually instead of a myriad of tiny e-cig companies producing hundreds of different models of PV or rebranding from China we'll have mega brands of e-cigs that are as common as Camel, Marlboro, and Newport. When that happens, it needs to be clear that we support the e-cigarette in concept, but aren't promoting any single company or even a particular product. Other paradigm shifts are possible or even likely in the PV marketplace..."E-cigarettes" may or may not ever receive social acceptance so vapers may show a preference for vaporizers that don't look much like cigarettes and the court of public opinion might decide we don't want to call them "e-cigarettes" because that has to be taken outside, but its okay to use your PV...that sort of thing. Basically, we gotta be flexible with the product we are focusing our efforts on.

Think this through; tobacco companies, you know , the people that make cigarettes, make things like snus, dissolvables, etc.

Are we really interested in these sorts of products? RJR et all have more than enough resources to push their tobbacco-based cigarette products. The greater the distance the better or "Guilt by Association" will be a dark cloud hanging over this endeavor from Day Zero.

No, we aren't particularly interested in these products. But if they work for you, we support your freedom to choose what is effective. Therefore we should consider having efficacy comparisons.

Not to be a sad clown here, but I were I already not hanging around these parts, admittedly up until now, silently, I would have some reservations if anything to do with tobacco was attached.

Hence my statement of keeping narrow enough to stay off the slippery slope

-K

I agree that we should not include references to Nicotine, Tobacco, or any specific products or brands. Nicotine and tobacco are not necessarilly our ally or our enemy. Our enemy is smoke and our ally is consumer choice, and improved safety and efficacy. I say we support any product that also supports that ideal. ...and right now the only products that offer significantly increased safety while effectively providing an alternative to smoke are e-cigs and therefore we support the consumer's right to choose e-cigarettes while we reserve the right to endorse other products that provide improved safety or are more effective at reducing or eliminating smoke.

 

[MrKai]

I have to disagree with you here, and in a way you contradict yourself a few sentences later later...

...

I think that if you "start with e-cigs/vaping" you are sacrificing objectivity.

...

But our support for this or any product should be contingent on our dedication to the basic ideal, rather than having our ideals dictated by our dedication to a product.

...then really, you are dead before you start. I do have a question though:

Is you desire to "broaden to scope" an attempt to have a larger base? It appears this is the case, but you really need to look at this a different way, sort of like political affiliation:

There are many who consider themselves "Conservatives" but keep a far distance from "ultra-conservatives" like say, the KKK.

The same goes with folks that brand themselves "Liberals"...many don't want to have a thing to do with more radical groups such as extremists in advocacy of animal rights, "Eco-terrorists" and the like...even if such "extremists" groups, on either side, would bolster their numbers, because they simply raise the signal-to-noise level via guilt by association.

So no, I am not *really* objective in the most pure form; I am not sure the majority here are either to be frank and playing at it for the sake of numbers or appearance is a bad move, especially if in our case these "friends" of ours use tobacco products...smokeless or otherwise.

Do you follow my reasoning here?

Big Tobacco is part of the problem, for the "World at Large" and certainly amongst and large contingency of vapers. They are "evil" and being "buddies" by advocating their products is fraught with implication.

I'm just saying: *actively aligning* with users of other tobacco products is fraught with implication that will cause the overarching message to be drowned in a cacophony of accusation and a suspicion of being shills for BigT.

The furthest I would go would be a table comparing products. Statistics are designed to do what you want them to and things like snus will come out looking fabulous given the right set of metrics. Of course not as fab as e-Cigs on the whole, but actively endorsing this product group?

I dunno

I do PR and marketing work...Image man. Image

-K

 

[MrKai]

I agree that we should not include references to Nicotine, Tobacco, or any specific products or brands. Nicotine and tobacco are not necessarilly our ally or our enemy. Our enemy is smoke and our ally is consumer choice, and improved safety and efficacy. I say we support any product that also supports that ideal. ...and right now the only products that offer significantly increased safety while effectively providing an alternative to smoke are e-cigs and therefore we support the consumer's right to choose e-cigarettes while we reserve the right to endorse other products that provide improved safety or are more effective at reducing or eliminating smoke.

...but from a *marketing standpoint* again is a bad, bad, bad foot to get off on.

While "tobacco" may not be our "enemy" (arguable) Tobacco Companies are NOT who I think we want people believing are our "friends".

It is just horrible, horrible PR. For the sake of THIS endeavor I wouldn't go there

Look at it this way: Non-Smokers/haters of Smoke are a far more vocal group...and they have a distain for tobacco companies that is rabid, to say the least. You want these people in our corner; a thumbs up from rabid anti-smokers are a 10:1 better value proposition...and you won't get that from folks that feel you are "soft" on tobacco companies.

And so that you don't misunderstand me: I've been known to pop a snus or two...however I don't expect this to get me any points with tobacco haters

-K

 

[Thulium]

as a matter of fact, i am not one of those other addicts. let's get that straight. no one here is. if so, then where is your proof? where are the studies that are stating nicotine, by itself, is on par with substances that are addictive?

Well, this is what the American Heart Association has to say:

Nicotine Addiction
What causes nicotine addiction? Nicotine is an addictive drug. It causes changes in the brain that make people want to use it more and more. In addition, addictive drugs cause unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. The good feelings that result when an addictive drug is present — and the bad feelings when it's absent — make breaking any addiction very difficult. Nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break.
The 1988 Surgeon General's Report, "Nicotine Addiction," concluded that

• Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting.
• Nicotine is the drug that causes addiction.
• Pharmacologic and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as ...... and ........

What are the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal?

• irritability
• impatience
• hostility
• anxiety
• depressed mood
• difficulty concentrating
• restlessness
• decreased heart rate
• increased appetite or weight gain

If you don't think Nicotine is addictive, take it up with the C. Everett Koop because he proved that Nicotine is the primary addictive ingredient in tobacco 21 years ago. If Nicotine isn't the addictive substance, why do you suppose people use Nicotine Replacement Therapies??

there are many people using the pv with 0mg eliquid. is it fair that these individuals be catagorized within your addiction schematic, and consequently do you think they'd appreciate being represented as such?

MY addiction schematic? No, no its not mine. It's the entire medical industry's definition of addiction.

I love that people use PV's without nicotine. I think people should be able to choose to use PV's as a way to injest any reasonable and legal substance or none at all. That's why its about the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking. The customer also should have the right to break their dependency and since a person choosing to break their addiction to nicotine is an effective alternative to smoking, we should support their choice just like we support the choice of someone who does not choose to end their addiction but would like to minimize the adverse health effects of smoking on themselves and those around them.

your insistence about the addiction thing goes way overboard and does a disservice. to equate nicotine addiction to that of other aversive behaviors and substances is irresponsible because, again, there is no evidence finding nicotine, by itself, to be anywhere near the addictive substance as you state it is. furthermore, using the caffeine example is just absurd.

This discussion is counterproductive here. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says that Nicotine IS addictive. Tobacco Addiction - Research Report Series - NIDA
This researcher suggests that although it is infrequently diagnosed, as many as 1 in 10 people has caffeinism: Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

i'm sorry. if you are fearful of the potential downsides of pv's then quit using them. but, equating their use to addictive behaviors is nothing short of detrimental, and is at this juncture intellectually dishonest.

I'm not sure why you would think I am feaful of the potential downsides of PVs. It sounds like you might be afraid to admit that you have an addiction, but I support your right to choose to use PVs to reduce the collateral damage of your addiction just like I support the rights of the next guy to use PV's as part or all of a plan to end their dependence on nicotine, just like I support the rights of anyone else to use PV's to consume vitamins, supplements, medications, or without anything but to enjoy flavored vapor.

EDIT: In your defense, you may be confused about the addictive properties of Nicotine because there is research showing that Nicotine by itself does not do much to reinforce the initial addictions. Basically, if Nicotine is taken alone (like it is in e-cigarettes) it is not particularly habit-forming, but if you have already developed a habit a nicotine dependence/addiction is very real. However, e-cigarettes do reproduce many of the other addictive elements of smoking...whether or not this is a good thing is unclear and probably subjective. Its quite possible that while e-cigs might be the best choice for someone who does not choose to break their dependency, they may or may not be a good choice for someone who is. Regardless if you choose to break your dependency on nicotine, or whatever your reason for using PVs...we support your right to choose a safer and more effective alternative to smoking and that support extends to your choice to break or continue your use of Nicotine--whichever gets you to reduce or eliminate the exhaust of noxious gases and carcinogens released by smoking...If its e-cigarettes or whatever the next big thing is..that is what we support.

 

[Thulium]

...but from a *marketing standpoint* again is a bad, bad, bad foot to get off on.

While "tobacco" may not be our "enemy" (arguable) Tobacco Companies are NOT who I think we want people believing are our "friends".

It is just horrible, horrible PR. For the sake of THIS endeavor I wouldn't go there

Look at it this way: Non-Smokers/haters of Smoke are a far more vocal group...and they have a distain for tobacco companies that is rabid, to say the least. You want these people in our corner; a thumbs up from rabid anti-smokers are a 10:1 better value proposition...and you won't get that from folks that feel you are "soft" on tobacco companies.

And so that you don't misunderstand me: I've been known to pop a snus or two...however I don't expect this to get me any points with tobacco haters

-K

I think you may be misinterpreting my intentions because I think we are in agreement at the core. I am in no way suggesting that we should cozy up to or specifically disassociate ourselves from Tobacco. We should be open to supporting alternate forms of consuming tobacco if the method is consistent with our core values. That means that if a method produced by Big Tobacco, or Big Pharma improves safety and/or is an effective alternative to smoking, we should support the consumer's right to choose it. Does that mean we're going to run ad's for Philip Morris or Pfizer? Of course not--we're not even supposed to have ads for e-cig manufacturers! In fact, I believe that the only real support that the established alternatives need from us is publishing efficacy and safety studies and perhaps examining the efficacy and safety of combined efforts (is using Snus in conjuction with a PV a better or worse in terms of safety and efficacy, for example)

Our primary point of promotion and education at this point is personal vaporizers, but we are remaining open to improvements on the e-cigarette. Being a little broad and not referencing tobacco, nicotine, or e-cigarettes in our charter acknowledges that there are many different types of PVs and we may or may not want to endorse all of them...and at some point, hopefully PV's won't need our support, but maybe something else will.

 

[webtaxman]

Does the ECO support a ban on Snus? Yes or no. OR does the ECO take no position on the ban?

The ECO should promote the philosophy of "free to choose." We don't want government involvement restricting our choices.

 

[Thulium]

Does the ECO support a ban on Snus? Yes or no. OR does the ECO take no position on the ban?

The ECO should promote the philosophy of "free to choose." We don't want government involvement restricting our choices.

That is why my suggested Mission statement is "to preserve the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking".

To my mind, that breaks down into 3 core values: Consumer choice, safer alternatives to smoking, and more effective alternatives to smoking. Issues such as Snus, NRTs, that do not address all 3 values can be considered as areas for support and research, but for now at least, PV's are the best fit for our mission. I think that if a product comes along that is a safer and more effective alternative to smoking than e-cigarettes, I think that product would deserve our support. The grey area is products like Snus that are probably not as safe as e-cigs, but with their availability might be more effective for some people so I would say that Snus could potentially gather some amount of endorsement from us, but it does not merit any major promotion efforts as it does not adhere to our values as well as PVs..and since it has commercial backing already, it doesn't need our promotion either. If we give an endorsement to Snus, its mostly just to be philosophically consistent.

Basically, regarding Snus, I think our stance should be "Well, its better than smoke and we support your right to choose so if it works for you, good for you!"

We can make the same statement about e-cigarettes, but since we believe PVs are currently the embodiment of our stated mission, e-cigarettes get our promotional efforts.