Misinformation and proposed FDA ban
- Thread starter SissySpike
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
How rich do you think CASAA is?
CASAA is funded by donations, from vapers like you and me.CASAA allows you to promote e-cigs, by making the necessary information available to you, for free! If you want to spread the joy, order some info cards, and contact your state representatives, when they ask you to.
I don't trust BT because they have too much influence in the system. I am certain that they are using it to benefit themselves, before anyone else.
EDIT: For clarification, I should have also stated that CASAA is not in the business of promoting vaping, on a large, public scale (yet).
Last edited:
How rich do you think CASAA is?
CASAA allows you to promote e-cigs, by making the necessary information available to you, for free! If you want to spread the joy, order some info cards, and contact your state representatives, when they ask you to.
I don't trust BT because they have too much influence in the system. I am certain that they are using it to benefit themselves, before anyone else.
You'd be surprised at how easy it is to get a meeting with and speak with a legislator, and how easy it is to register as a lobbyist.
Obviously CASSA could never afford a media campaign. The point is that someone does and is. They shouldn't be demonized for it because of the past of their current owners. BLU is in the fight.
Has BT done shady stuff? Yes. Should that be forgiven? No.
Should Steve's point be acknowledged? Yes.
I've seen many people on this board get whipped in a frenzy over some people not being willing to recognize the difference between vaping and smoking. Blu is trying to get a legal precedent for that distinction. I'm not saying welcome BT with open arms. Just saying recognize that they aren't pure evil on all topics.
Last I heard RJR backed some legislation in NC but what little I read on it, they were just trying to improve public perception, even if it was a misguided attempt. One thing that has happened in multiple industries is, when facing regulations, be at the front of calling for regulations. The idea serves two purposes. One, as I mentioned, is to give the appearance that they care about doing the right thing. The other; by calling for your own industry to be regulated you can, in theory, direct the regulation to suit your interest. There are situations where that has worked and also backfired. It's a gamble, but so is just standing your ground since that will alienate you from the opposition instead of opening possibility to work with "the enemy".
Now, since the defeat of the NC legislation has BT been behind any regulation that doesn't go in favor of what we'd like to see? Note I am not saying they haven't, but I haven't heard of it.
How rich do you think CASAA is?
CASAA allows you to promote e-cigs, by making the necessary information available to you, for free! If you want to spread the joy, order some info cards, and contact your state representatives, when they ask you to.
I don't trust BT because they have too much influence in the system. I am certain that they are using it to benefit themselves, before anyone else.
How much does it cost to put out a call to action on the website or by email?
Did you miss the part of my post that said that only one of the big e-cig companies that may be trying to get online sales banned is owned by BT?
No. Njoy is NOT a product from a tobacco company. The only U.S. e-cigarette company owned by a tobacco company is blu. And RJR will is rolling out it's own brand nationally, too.
BT is just as shady and manipulative as always? So is Big Pharma and Big E-cig. They all want the same thing - dominate the nicotine market. BT isn't special - the ANTZ just want you to hate BT so you'll trust them (and their sugar daddy, BP). No one is on our side and it's dangerous to just focus on BT as the enemy. BT is the closest thing to an industry friend we have. The e-cigarette companies are unorganized and fighting for scraps and Big Pharma wants e-cigarettes wiped out. At least BT wants to sell us what we want and make its customers happy and has the money and power to fight against regulations. We just have to get tobacco companies to understand the importance of diversity in the market - that there IS a an after-market that could make them a lot of money, too and they shouldn't burn bridges by focusing on getting stick batteries approved - and stop creating well-meaning but stupid legislation.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Lorillard/blu and other tobacco company contacts behind the scenes with legislators have NOT really been helping - at least not for anyone who doesn't want to vape pre-filled stick batteries bought in a neighborhood store or kiosk. CASAA has had to fight the tobacco company-supported legislation that proposed banning online sales, tobacco taxes and requiring tobacco licenses for B&M stores. Some have even proposed banning kiosks.
CASAA speaks to legislators when we can. We actually were involved in a law proposed in Wisconsin to protect e-cigarettes from being included in smoking bans. It didn't go anywhere because no one wants to pass laws like that. It's hard to get a sponsor and even harder to get support when no one is calling for a ban at the time. We have found that "protective e-cig legislation" is a very hard sell. CASAA is meeting with the FDA Monday. CASAA represents consumers and fights for diversity in the market. blu fights for blu and blu's business model. CASAA doesn't demonize tobacco companies, because CASAA endorses multiple forms of harm reduction, including smoke-free tobacco. We are happy for their support in our fight, but even with honest and good intentions, so far most of them have been causing more headaches than helping.
We use social media as much as we can to spread the word. We did fund a pretty important research paper that made the news and created a "media campaign" that called into question the ANTZ claim that "we don't know what is in them" and "they contain toxic chemicals and are a hazard to bystanders." (Something blu and other e-cig companies could never legally advertise.) We also were in the news a lot recently after leaking the New York legislation. We'll be capitalizing on the survey results, as well. In a couple of weeks we have new folded informational cards available - basically mini flyers with the truth about e-cigs on them. And we have a bunch of public service announcement graphics slowly rolling out.
CASAA members do just as much and sometimes more in this fight for vapers than blu does or even can.
Last edited:
CASAA is aware of it. It's still going through revisions and Ohio's House is not in session right now. Word is the Attorney General will be insisting that 3rd party verification is required for online sales. That could hurt a lot of online stores. We're waiting until session starts again in early-mid September to see if we'll need a Call to Action issued for it.
Are you volunteering?
It's time, and effort. It's finding out what's going on, doing the research, understanding what's going on, who's doing it or behind it, *then* figuring out what needs to be done, if anything. Some of this requires legal expertise.Then there's the communication; Facebook, Twitter, all the different forums, emails to vendors? Followed by responding to these actions, as needed.
[EDIT: I didn't understand the question, as an actual question; my bad!]
Oh I agree; most things are easier than we expect; just look at the Colbert SuperPAC
I do like that Blu is running all these ads, and that they have a product that they've gone out of their way to make available widely. But I'm not forgetting how BT fought to keep cigarettes away from any and all regulations, unconscionably hid known facts about tobacco, played with dangerous additives, and used dubious marketing strategies.
Last edited:
Are you volunteering?
Then there's the communication; Facebook, Twitter, all the different forums, emails to vendors? Followed by responding to these actions, as needed.
A bit defensive? I wasn't accusing CASAA of doing nothing here. My point was strictly your claim about money. If Blu is putting up the money part it doesn't cost much in money to help raise awareness.
As far as what I am doing - Not much yet. I didn't become interested in being active until the call to action with Canton, MA. Pretty disheartening when the first time I really paid attention ended in a split decision instead of a clear victory. I'll just say I'm new to becoming involved in this type of thing but am learning.
What are you doing? My question isn't accusatory.
Did you miss the part of my post that said that only one of the big e-cig companies that may be trying to get online sales banned is owned by BT?
No. Njoy is NOT a product from a tobacco company. The only U.S. e-cigarette company owned by a tobacco company is blu. And RJR will is rolling out it's own brand nationally, too.
BT is just as shady and manipulative as always? So is Big Pharma and Big E-cig. They all want the same thing - dominate the nicotine market. BT isn't special - the ANTZ just want you to hate BT so you'll trust them (and their sugar daddy, BP). No one is on our side and it's dangerous to just focus on BT as the enemy. BT is the closest thing to an industry friend we have. The e-cigarette companies are unorganized and fighting for scraps and Big Pharma wants e-cigarettes wiped out. At least BT wants to sell us what we want and make its customers happy and has the money and power to fight against regulations. We just have to get tobacco companies to understand the importance of diversity in the market - that there IS a an after-market that could make them a lot of money, too and they shouldn't burn bridges by focusing on getting stick batteries approved - and stop creating well-meaning but stupid legislation.
Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Lorillard/blu and other tobacco company contacts behind the scenes with legislators have NOT really been helping - at least not for anyone who doesn't want to vape pre-filled stick batteries bought in a neighborhood store or kiosk. CASAA has had to fight the tobacco company-supported legislation that proposed banning online sales, tobacco taxes and requiring tobacco licenses for B&M stores. Some have even proposed banning kiosks.
CASAA speaks to legislators when we can. We actually were involved in a law proposed in Wisconsin to protect e-cigarettes from being included in smoking bans. It didn't go anywhere because no one wants to pass laws like that. It's hard to get a sponsor and even harder to get support when no one is calling for a ban at the time. We have found that "protective e-cig legislation" is a very hard sell. CASAA is meeting with the FDA Monday. CASAA represents consumers and fights for diversity in the market. blu fights for blu and blu's business model. CASAA doesn't demonize tobacco companies, because CASAA endorses multiple forms of harm reduction, including smoke-free tobacco. We are happy for their support in our fight, but even with honest and good intentions, so far most of them have been causing more headaches than helping.
We use social media as much as we can to spread the word. We did fund a pretty important research paper that made the news and created a "media campaign" that called into question the ANTZ claim that "we don't know what is in them" and "they contain toxic chemicals and are a hazard to bystanders." (Something blu and other e-cig companies could never legally advertise.) We also were in the news a lot recently after leaking the New York legislation. We'll be capitalizing on the survey results, as well. In a couple of weeks we have new folded informational cards available - basically mini flyers with the truth about e-cigs on them. And we have a bunch of public service announcement graphics slowly rolling out.
CASAA members do just as much and sometimes more in this fight for vapers than blu does or even can.
To be honest Im sick and tired of the whole rotten dirty back stabbing lying corrupted mess of a regulatory and legislative system we have in place. Im glad we have people like you who can stand to be in the same room with them cause Id just as soon sock them in their mouth as look at them!
I will just keep writing emails and leave messages on answering machines when needed I don't have the patience or temper to deal with phonies and fakes!
Aren't the vast majority of BLU sales through their web-site? Their products are cheaper on their site than at stores. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to lose most of their business.
I thought they were just for age-verification? Can someone provide a link to a BLU press release stating they want to have online sales banned?
When I bought tobacco online, the sites I bought from had age-verification software and required me to send them a copy of my license. No big deal. Those vendors didn't shut down.
I thought they were just for age-verification? Can someone provide a link to a BLU press release stating they want to have online sales banned?
When I bought tobacco online, the sites I bought from had age-verification software and required me to send them a copy of my license. No big deal. Those vendors didn't shut down.
LOL@ buzzzlove! Trust me, we get sick and tired of the whole thing, too.
I imagine you would. I'm glad to hear CASAA knows that even if BT isn't a full ally doesn't make them a total enemy, which I didn't assume they did. I do see how people reading this board would think so since some (not all) of the members here seem to think they are the enemy.
Mike DeWine is not only very reachable, but will listen to reason and make an informed decision. I have confidence whatever he decides will be fair. I did mention in a post earlier, that back in the day I worked at the Hart Senate building. Maybe I'll shoot him an e-mail...
Last edited:
I don't understand? CASAA does put out a LOT of Calls to Action on the website and via email? But both the website and the Constant Contact email database do cost money.
It also costs a lot of money to send CASAA directors to other states to speak to legislators, attend TPSAC panel meetings and meeting with the FDA, online store, domain names, promotional materials (some free to members), a phone line, mailbox service, IRS tax accountant, press release service, paying the website developer for the new site, buying licenses/rights to use graphics and photos, PayPal fees, webinar service for member meetings, paid access to research journals, researcher assistant, survey program, Facebook ads, etc. It all adds up.
I don't understand? CASAA does put out a LOT of Calls to Action on the website and via email? But both the website and the Constant Contact email database do cost money.
It also costs a lot of money to send CASAA directors to other states to speak to legislators, attend TPSAC panel meetings and meeting with the FDA, online store, domain names, promotional materials (some free to members), a phone line, mailbox service, IRS tax accountant, press release service, paying the website developer for the new site, buying licenses/rights to use graphics and photos, PayPal fees, webinar service for member meetings, paid access to research journals, researcher assistant, survey program, Facebook ads, etc. It all adds up.
Context is key. It was mentioned that a call to action could happen. The response was it cost money. My point, just how much money is a call to action - not the other stuff you just pointed to.
Last edited:
I gotta defend CASAA
(you seemed to imply that it was easy/cheap; I didn't even describe half of what they actually do, I'm sure)[EDIT: misinterpreted as "C'mon really? How much could it possibly cost?"]
Does Blu have a superPAC? Are they lobbying? (favorably). I think Kristin described them in more detail:
Yeah the Canton thing was a surprise, but it looks like it all turned out well; pfew!
Check out their store locator:
Where to Buy blu eCigs: | blu eCigs Retailers
They're *everywhere*
Last edited:
Greg has already been in touch with the AG's office, which is why we know about the possible 3rd party verification requirement. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated!
As far as 3rd party verification hurting business, CASAA has not supported that requirement to date. Not every vaper has the same ambivalent feelings about it as you do and some strongly oppose it.
As far as blu being "largely online," that may have been true before being bought by Lorillard, but the tobacco companies are largely focusing on filling shelf space in stores. Killing online sales, where products are much cheaper and have more variety, would benefit Lorillard and other brands that focus on retail space. The market for e-cigarettes has a lot more small companies than online cigarettes do and a much smaller pool of potential customers than there are for tobacco cigarettes (at least right now.) A lot of those smaller companies cannot afford the kind of age verification systems that some officials want in place. It could severely reduce the vendor options for vapers to just bigger companies.
That is why I was asking what you meant. It does cost money to raise awareness and blu doesn't fund CASAA. Most of our members would be horrified if we took money from a company that also sells combustible cigarettes - not to mention that the ANTZ would have a field day accusing us of being paid shills for BT if we did.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
