ECO - Organization Charter: Administration

[dperino]

roberty, i absolutely agree. no reason to have an organization of this type without conducting advocacy for the sake of its members, potential consumers and public at large. also, as long as the intent is not just to write a bunch of by-laws and related charter docs only to show that a bunch of interested people can create a high-falutin' web presence, but actually demonstrates an earnest follow-through by product testing, customer service ratings and policing manufacturing and commercial practices. It can be a win-win (although some will never be won over). lastly, various suppliers appear to also have a buy-in and seem serious about this, realizing they also win in the long run. i think everyone is of the same mind that this is a consumer's association, and as such should never steer away from that mission. no mean hat trick considering the various players involved. thanks.

 

[RobertY]

Are they not already their own adhoc group?

I nominate the members of the Alliance of Electronic Smokers to board the ECO. What say you?

 

[RobertY]

Now this is exciting news. It looks like the group is moving forward and slowly gaining momentum. I mean looks like the web site is coming along nicely, Charter is being worked on, and the goals and objectives are being started on. Looking good!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have our first (non-elected) officer. Jim Russo has offered to write the NPO documents and file for the group. Mr. Russo has an MBA, is a former IRS auditor and now serves as CFO for Harbor Communications.

• The web site build out is being done now and should be live by the end of next week.
• Finalizing of key goals and objectives needed NOW. Once we have achieved a consensus of those, the organization charter can be completed.
• Once the Organization Charter is complete, we will establish a physical office, trust account, business license and accreditation.
• Officer nominations will be handled under a separate thread
• Officers will select teams to aid in the tasks at hand
• Legal council will be obtained

I believe we are very close on the mission statement, which makes establishing our key goals and objectives next on the list. Third, we will establish just HOW we plan to accomplish those tasks.

I'll start it off - "The objectives of this organization are _______."

1. Inform and educate the general public as to the available options for tobacco alternatives and provide documentation to reputable medical and news items.
2. Create a web-based community for individual users and their shared experiences with these products by testimonials, photos and multimedia clips.
3. Form a collective voice for the urging of more positive political, medical and legal representation of the electronic cigarettes and tobacco alternative community in congress, the medical community and the media.

4. 5. 6. ???

 

[Thulium]

Here's my shot at a mission statement and objectives. Italicized items to be replaced by selected organization name.

Mission:
SAFER is dedicated to preserving the consumer's right to choose safer and more effective alternatives to smoking.

Objective:
The Smoke-free Alternatives Foundation, Education, & Resources (SAFER) is a non-profit international coalition of consumers and industry professionals working together educate the public about the real risks and potential benefits of smokeless alternatives and nicotine replacement therapies, publicize research and support new as well as existing harm reduction technologies, and share provide and support political and legal causes that preserve consumer freedom.

1. Inform and educate the general public as to the available options for tobacco alternatives and provide documentation to reputable medical and news items.
   
2. Maintain a web-based community for individual users and their shared experiences with these products by testimonials, photos and multimedia clips.
   
3. Form 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. Advocate efforts to disencourage the sale of personal vaporizer and supplies to minors. Support manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to stringent standards such as:
   • disclaimers on packaging, and web sites
   • requirements that purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
   • reporting attempts of illegal sales to minors to the proper authorities.
5. Act as a consumer protection support center for products and services that do not adhere to ethical practices, demonstrate the consumer’s best interest in manufacturing and marketing practices.
6. Establish guidelines that manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers are required to maintain in order to receive SAFER Approved Certification.

As a note, I did not choose a template name that included the word tobacco and avoided the use of the word tobacco throughout, replacing it with "smoking". I think the use of the word tobacco should be avoided as not all e-cigarette products are made from tobacco. Considering the FDA report showed the presence of tobacco related carcinogens and the fact that many people use personal vaporizers without nicotine and some manufacturers do not obtain their nicotine from tobacco. I would urge us to not get too cozy with Tobacco unless and until our cause is enjoined by tobacco representatives. I believe our cause is bigger than our connection tobacco or even to personal vaporizers. Nicotine isn't the problem, tobacco might be, but the real and biggest problem is the smoke itself.

 

[Mister]

Thulium, I think you've made some very good points regarding "smoking" vs. "tobacco"

I see that you've focussed the objectives to a fair degree on vaping. One phrase which caught me off guard before getting to the numbered items was "real risks and potential benefits of smokeless alternatives and nicotine replacement therapies."

I think that extensive attention to existing NRTs would dilute the new organizations efforts. The founding membership of the organization will largely be vapers. I doubt there will be anyone present who wants to serve as a collector of information about gum, patches, Chantix, snuff, butane powered tobacco vaporizers, or even snus. The most likely result regarding all of those NRTs (except perhaps snus) is that the people in the new organization will be sources of information about why they don't work.

I think the best bet for the new organization is to not include anything under its umbrella except vaping, while leaving the door open for future developments which are at least as effective as vaping. I don't know if that's your thinking too, the phrase I quoted seems open to interpretation.

I'd like to see other people's thoughts about this. So far this discussion does not seem to me to have clarified how much scope people want the new organization to have. Including, if they want it to be broader than vaping, would they be willing to work in the non-vaping areas? (I think it would be best to avoid a situation where the mission statement and objectives encompass all alternatives to smoking, but the subject matter ends up being mostly about vaping.)

 

[Thulium]

I think that extensive attention to existing NRTs would dilute the new organizations efforts. The founding membership of the organization will largely be vapers. I doubt there will be anyone present who wants to serve as a collector of information about gum, patches, Chantix, snuff, butane powered tobacco vaporizers, or even snus. The most likely result regarding all of those NRTs (except perhaps snus) is that the people in the new organization will be sources of information about why they don't work.

I think the best bet for the new organization is to not include anything under its umbrella except vaping, while leaving the door open for future developments which are at least as effective as vaping. I don't know if that's your thinking too, the phrase I quoted seems open to interpretation.

Well other NRT's certainly have enough support from Big Pharma & Big Tobacco so I completely agree that we do not really need to give them much attention. However, as I believe the real "enemy" is smoke and the real mission (at least under the statement I wrote) is safer and more effective alternatives to smoking--traditional NRT's are certainly safer, but they aren't particularly effective as they don't address anything but the urge for nicotine itself, while PV's are actually a smoking alternative and don't necessarily need to replace the nicotine.

However, I don't think that they should be ignored entirely. I think that some people might want to combine e-cigarettes with other therapies if they are actually trying to break the nicotine addiction. Alternately, some people may not choose to quit smoking altogether but might use an e-cigarette in order to smoke less. Finally, some people choose to use personal vaporizers without nicotine at all, and PV's could be a good alternative for other forms of medication or even food supplements.

For these reasons, I think its important to emphasize our role as consumer advocates with smoking as our "enemy" and we are fighting back with an alternative to the "quit or die" mentality. We should be to smoking what Ralph Nader was to automobiles: When it's not reasonable or effective to quit using them altogether, strive to reduce environmental impact and consumer ignorance while improving safety measures and supporting technological improvements.

 

[gr8dane]

I completely (although respectfully) disagree that we want to include a reference to NRTs in the mission statement. We need to focus on addressing smoking alternatives. It is dangerous to stick our toe into the 'quit smoking product' pond...that moves us out of the reduced harm category into the drug category.

 

[madman3237]

I nominate the members of the Alliance of Electronic Smokers to board the ECO. What say you?

If you mean the original public members:

Bonniegirl,
JustJulie
Tazcat
Lika
TheIllustratedMan

I second.

Would also like to add Kristen.

 

[madman3237]

Are they not already their own adhoc group?

From Wikipedia:

Ad hoc organizations, to include committees and private non-profit organizations, are used when an objective needs consideration and no standing organ or committee within said organization can absorb that issue into its scope. Usually these committees are used on a temporary basis, such as temporary oversight of an issue, or review of the standing rules or the constitution of that organization.
An ad hoc organization may have, in some cases, a long-term or indefinite duration of existence. In these cases, an initial workgroup or forum may give place to a more permanent form of organization. A typical example is the OSCE.
Under the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, ad hoc events such as athletic contests, exhibitions, expeditions, fairs, and festivals are considered to be corporate bodies, and can be used as corporate body access points.

Up to them to accept or decline a nomination to run.

 

[Webby]

...

I'd like to see other people's thoughts about this. So far this discussion does not seem to me to have clarified how much scope people want the new organization to have. Including, if they want it to be broader than vaping, would they be willing to work in the non-vaping areas? (I think it would be best to avoid a situation where the mission statement and objectives encompass all alternatives to smoking, but the subject matter ends up being mostly about vaping.)

Therein lies our latest Catch-22. To be honest, it’s one that has been bothering me too. This may not be a popular stance, but hear me out. (I'm not a certified Devil's Advocate, but I do play one online.)

We could garner a tremendous amount of press and open a lot of media doors by not playing the e-cig card quite so heavily. On the other hand, we don't want to mislead the public if we aren't prepared to open up our efforts to ALL forms of tobacco alternatives.

There really is no right or wrong answer here. There are pros and cons to either choice. This is, however, a core philosophy of what we stand for. Over the last few weeks I see the rush to move quickly, somewhat balanced by the cynical wisdom of many longtime posters who have fought this battle (ad nauseum) before.

Discussion here is the basis of what this group will become.

Once again, what do YOU think?

 

[madman3237]

Therein lies our latest Catch-22. To be honest, it’s one that has been bothering me too. This may not be a popular stance, but hear me out. (I'm not a certified Devil's Advocate, but I do play one online.)

We could garner a tremendous amount of press and open a lot of media doors by not playing the e-cig card quite so heavily. On the other hand, we don't want to mislead the public if we aren't prepared to open up our efforts to ALL forms of tobacco alternatives.

There really is no right or wrong answer here. There are pros and cons to either choice. This is, however, a core philosophy of what we stand for. Over the last few weeks I see the rush to move quickly, somewhat balanced by the cynical wisdom of many longtime posters who have fought this battle (ad nauseum) before.

Discussion here is the basis of what this group will become.

Once again, what do YOU think?

We should be open to other reduced harm alternatives. However, that does NOT includes NRTs. NRTs are a totally different product and intended to be used for a short time only and heavily regulated. It would not bother me to be associated with snus or such or any new product of that type. It would bother me to be associated with Chantix...

 

[mtndude]

more thoughts...

As all this comes together, there is ample material for a nice front page and then some (a lot actually). My question is, beyond that, what qualifies as suitable informative content? What is the process of consensus?

Maybe the answer to those questions will solve the dilemma of how broadly "alternatives" will be defined.

May I suggest nominations begin for Editor(s) in Chief?

 

[yvilla]

I'm with madman on this one. Other smokefree alternatives such as dissolvables and snus, for example, fit within the scope of our mission, but I would also strongly not want us to be associated with NRT products and other drug products like Chantix and Zyban.

 

[Mister]

Here's a thought experiment which might help you to decide how you feel about the scope of the organization's interests.

Suppose that some product X is facing a possible ban. Let's say in the US for now since international is a separate pending question. Should our organization issue a call to arms to its members, ask a favor of its legal contributors, and consider spending some of its meager treasury, to support opposition to the threat?

On thinking about scope in that light I find myself saying:

1) If X is a vaping device or liquid, yes, absolutely. That kind of event isn't the organization's sole purpose but it is what motivated its formation in the first place, and the members will greatly support taking action.

2) If X is an NRT, no. I'm pretty sure the membership would overwhelmingly say that maybe this ban is a violation of civil liberties but it isn't one we want to use our resource to fight. Vape on!

That still leaves a question in my mind regarding snus, snuff, chewing tobacco, RJ Reynolds Eclipse, and probably some other things I'm not aware of. Would you want our organization to use its resources to oppose a ban on any or all of those products?

 

[webtaxman]

I must agree with Madman and Yvilla. No to NRTs. But YES to Mister's last question: I would like to use resources to oppose bans on snus, snuff, chewing tobacco, etc. Any and (most?) all except NRTs.

 

[gr8dane]

re my last post, obviously I agree with madman, yvilla, webtaxman....reduced harm alternatives - yes; NRTs - no

 

[dijohn76]

re my last post, obviously I agree with madman, yvilla, webtaxman....reduced harm alternatives - yes; NRTs - no

I second that!!!!!!! obviously the NRT's have their own backers with plenty of money, i.e. big P. We need to keep focused on our "reduced harm" products.

 

[malyden]

Personally I think at this time our focus should be on smoking/reduced harm alternatives. If for some reason further down the road we wish to include NRTs we can do so then. Remember we are just starting out keep the scope small so we don't get overwhelmed.

 

[dperino]

Therein lies our latest Catch-22. To be honest, it’s one that has been bothering me too. This may not be a popular stance, but hear me out. (I'm not a certified Devil's Advocate, but I do play one online.)

We could garner a tremendous amount of press and open a lot of media doors by not playing the e-cig card quite so heavily. On the other hand, we don't want to mislead the public if we aren't prepared to open up our efforts to ALL forms of tobacco alternatives.

There really is no right or wrong answer here. There are pros and cons to either choice. This is, however, a core philosophy of what we stand for. Over the last few weeks I see the rush to move quickly, somewhat balanced by the cynical wisdom of many longtime posters who have fought this battle (ad nauseum) before.

Discussion here is the basis of what this group will become.

Once again, what do YOU think?

After thinking about all of this I don't know why it's necessary to discuss any other tobacco alternatives. There won't be any quid pro quo coming from big pharma. They're not going to say "well if you don't like any of our products, why don't you check out the fine folk who sell ecigs". Nor is big tobacco. But, that's only number one.

Number two. To include other tobacco alternatives is to muddy up the waters and takes away from what I thought was the point to establishing the association. I would think the association would want to stay focused on the fight at hand while also educating the public about the pv. Now is not the time to be all things to all people.

Number three. Screw other tobacco alternatives. Big pharma and tobacco are supplying ASH and other nonprofits for the purposes of putting you, and other suppliers out of business. They are underwriting the effort to take away my choice in this matter. They want me to either smoke all the time, or put something on or in my body that tastes and makes me feel like ****. That will never fly.

Lastly, I'm not interested in anything but being able to vape. This to me is the "last hitching post" in terms of maybe eventually quiting smoking altogether. Do another poll and ask how many have attempted to quit using tobacco alternatives, which ones were used and the end results. The pv is the end result because the other stuff didn't work for them.

I really hope this isn't about playing the game the way the game is played. That doesn't set this effort apart from any one else gaming the system and other people. And if this is so, then my measily contributions end here and now.

 

[motorcity57]

I am an addict, just because nicotine is my drug of choice, does not mean i am any different than the alcholic, herion addict, or crack-head.
So i have quit smoking tobacco, and use an electronic cigarette to supply my nicotine addiction. safer, reduced harm? i cannot make these claims or support them, i believe there is much more research to be done before these claims can be made. vaping is a new technology, there is still much to be learned.
i have tried everything known to man , to beat nicotine addiction, nothing has worked. my goal? to slowly lower my nicotine intake until zero. once i get there the electronic cigarette is done. i will vape no more. Why would i?
the debate of not including other NRT and Pharma, just seems flawed to me.