N. Carolina and Louisiana Are E-Cig Haters Too !

[SteamDaddy]

CASAA: Call to Action! North Carolina Proposes Arbitrary Online Sales Restrictions -- HB 864 / SB 530

Louisiana removed from post.

I copied the links from Vapor Joes site.
Just to pass them out for notice.

Trying to stick their Grubby little fingers in someone else's pie !

 

[chargin]

Louisiana, not at this time.

This bill would *not* impact e-cigarettes.

 

[Myrany]

Louisiana, not at this time.

Yep that was confusing me last night when I read it. Big read letters that it did not apply to electronic cigarettes on the Louisiana law. I couldn't see why we were getting upset about it.

 

[chellemmm]

North Carolina makes all of its money from tobacco, so no surprise there. The ENTIRE city of Winston-Salem smells like a big cigarette .... when the wind is "right."

 

[kristin]

Yep that was confusing me last night when I read it. Big read letters that it did not apply to electronic cigarettes on the Louisiana law. I couldn't see why we were getting upset about it.

Because 1) CASAA supports ALL tobacco harm reduction, including low-risk, smoke-free tobacco; 2) anything they do to one low-risk, smoke-free product sets a precedent for e-cigarettes down the road and 3) CASAA members include both e-cigarette users and smoke-free users. We all support each other or else we will fail.

http://blog.casaa.org/2013/04/call-to-action-louisiana-bill-to-double.html

 

[Orobas]

I'm composing a letter now.

TARHEELS, GET WITH IT.

 

[Orobas]

Mass email sent. I would have loved to do faxes or hard copies instead, but next week is finals and I simply cannot find the time.

 

[Reaper0329]

I'll write as soon as I get back from hanging out with the family.

I think I've met one of the representatives here...John R. Bell IV. lol Perhaps he'll remember me?

 

[Myrany]

Because 1) CASAA supports ALL tobacco harm reduction, including low-risk, smoke-free tobacco; 2) anything they do to one low-risk, smoke-free product sets a precedent for e-cigarettes down the road and 3) CASAA members include both e-cigarette users and smoke-free users. We all support each other or else we will fail.

CASAA: Call to Action! Louisiana Bill to Double Smokeless Tobacco Tax -- HB 713

The key there is low risk. What I read of the LA law they are talking about chewing tobacco more than anything else on the smoke free side. That is not low risk honestly. At least not in my book.

 

[obsidianchao]

Yeah, chew is smoke free, but mouth cancer is common...

At least snus is healthier than cigarettes?

 

[kristin]

Modern smoke-free tobacco, including "chew" is low risk, even when not just compared to smoking. Like snus, it is far less hazardous than smoking. Mouth cancer is NOT common and this increases taxes on ALL smoke-free tobacco, not just chewing tobacco, so that includes snus and dissolvables. Either way, chew still significantly reduces health risks if you switch from smoking - likely as much as vaping or snus. You are believing ANTZ propaganda, not scientific evidence.

CASAA.com Smokefree Types

CASAA.com Smoke-free Tobacco

Regardless, the same potential for this coming back to bite vapers is there. If they can over tax one smoke-free alternative, they can use that justification to over tax e-cigarettes.

Please support our members who use smoke-free tobacco products the same way they support vapers.

 

[Myrany]

Modern smoke-free tobacco, including "chew" is low risk, even when not just compared to smoking. Like snus, it is far less hazardous than smoking. Mouth cancer is NOT common and this increases taxes on ALL smoke-free tobacco, not just chewing tobacco, so that includes snus and dissolvables. Either way, chew still significantly reduces health risks if you switch from smoking - likely as much as vaping or snus. You are believing ANTZ propaganda, not scientific evidence.

CASAA.com Smokefree Types

CASAA.com Smoke-free Tobacco

Regardless, the same potential for this coming back to bite vapers is there. If they can over tax one smoke-free alternative, they can use that justification to over tax e-cigarettes.

Please support our members who use smoke-free tobacco products the same way they support vapers.

I do not blindly follow anyone's propaganda. Not ANT and certainly not yours. I resent you saying that I do. I wi9ll do my own research ty and word my letter to my LA congressman according to what I find for myself.

Seriously I am starting to find some of the tactics used in these sorts of things horrible. Trying to guilt someone into following the party line (in this case CASAA) is just as bad as when it is done by any other group. You are not representing CASAA well with this tactic.

I personally prefer independent thought. I use CASAA's alerts to inform myself what I need to research on my own. Then I act. In this case I will be sending a carefully worded letter to my congressmen in favor of protecting HARM REDUCTION tobacco products but I will NEVER support traditional chewing tobacco I have seen first hand the devastation that stuff can cause. Just how I roll. I am not a sheeple to any group.

 

[kristin]

I'm guessing that you are not a member of CASAA or else you would know that our whole mission is changing public opinion, by educating people with the facts and truth, to save lives? We are not motivated by greed and hate. I'm sorry you feel that is "trying to guilt" people and anything even remotely like ANTZ propaganda, but I am not representing CASAA using a "tactic," I am following CASAA's mission: CASAA Mission Statement

You've obviously lost or saw someone suffer who also used chewing tobacco and I am sincerely sorry for your pain. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the scientific fact that someone who smokes is more than twice as likely to get oral cancers than someone who uses chew and 90% of lung cancer victims are smokers. Chew doesn't cause lung cancer at all. That makes chew far, far safer than smoking. There are cases of people who used chew being so convinced (by the ANTZ lie about smokeless tobacco frequently causing oral cancer) that they switched to smoking, actually doubling their risk of oral cancer and significantly increasing their risk of lung cancer and heart disease. There's even an ANTZ video trying to show how chew caused a man to get oral cancer, but if you listen closely, he got oral cancer after switching to smoking because he thought it was less risky!

People occasionally die because they are trapped by seat belts in wrecks and that is horrible, but we don't tell drivers to stop using them because then far more people will die. The truth is that far less lives would be lost if every smoker switched even to chew. CASAA isn't saying non-smokers should start using it, just that the fact is that it is far lower risk than smoking.

I thank you for still writing your legislators to oppose a law that would push smokers to keep smoking, instead of switching to far safer alternatives.