Should CASAA drop smokeless tabacoo from their platform and every drop THR.

[thew92]

After about 6 months of using the Ecig a watching Casaa. It seem to me the CASAA is chairing a lot of dead weight with ST. I strongly fell the CASAA would benefit greatly by limiting it self to Ecig only activism. As far as I can tell I would guess the 95% of the money and membership come from vapors. So if this is the case why would CASAA support something that doesn't support them.
I started vapeeig a few month ago and by the time I got the lingo down from battery's mods cartos attys, APV, Egos, and on and on with new would of lingo to learn. What would I want to jump into a group that supports THR when we don't want the Ecig to be a tobacco products. I often wonder how many want a be Ecig advocates go to the CASAA website and leave and never come back because the have no clue on what THR means and really just don't care


That all being said I think the board members of Casaa are doing a great job but I just don't get the fascinations with smokeless tobacco.

 

[DC2]

Wow, that makes for one hell of a debate topic.
Maybe you should post it in the General Discussion forum where it will get more views.

It is a conversation worth having, for a variety of reasons.
However, I personally think that THR is critical to our arguments, and smokeless tobacco is a valid thing to support.

But again, I repeat, it could make for a very interesting and informative discussion.

 

[Faylool]

What a bother. The point is to go smokeless. The reasons are very strong for either vaping or STs

 

[kristin]

If you weren't around in 2009, when CASAA first formed, you may not know how wrong it is to say that smokeless tobacco and THR doesn't support us. If it wasn't for the THR community, people like Dr. Carl Phillips, Brad Rodu, Paul Bergen, Bill Godshall and many others, CASAA (and the e-cigarette community & industry) wouldn't be where it is today. They've helped us immensely with their research on smoke-free tobacco and formulating our arguments and science to defend e-cigarettes not just as another vice, but a tobacco harm reduction product. It is the science showing that smoke-free tobacco is far less harmful than smoking that has made our arguments in the absence of any e-cigarette research. Supporters of THR also stepped up during the SE vs. FDA trial when it was trying to ban e-cigarettes. It's the THR argument that helps us win so many battles. If anything, the e-cigarette community owes THR a huge debt that could never be repaid, as they continue to support us to this day.

E-cigarettes don't work for everyone. There is a significant portion of the vaping community who wouldn't have been able to quit smoking using e-cigarettes alone, including some CASAA directors. My husband was also one of them. It took him 6 months longer to quit smoking than it did for me. If it wasn't for the availability of affordable smoke-free tobacco (snus), he'd still be smoking. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of vapers with the same story. ST makes e-cigs work for them.

There are over 8 million smoke-free tobacco users in the U.S. Long before e-cigarettes came on the scene, smokers were turning to ST as a safer alternative to smoking. There is far, far more scientific evidence supporting ST as a safer alternative than there is for e-cigarettes. Millions of people depend on these ST products remaining affordable, effective and available - far more than currently use e-cigarettes. Most of them have no interest in e-cigarettes. No consumer organization is really fighting for them nor the e-cigarette users who also need ST to remain smoke-free. How can CASAA even argue for the same thing for e-cigarettes without also supporting all of those ST users, especially after using all of the ST and THR information to fight for our personal nicotine product of choice? If it wasn't for them, we'd have had nothing to argue for the past 3 years, before any e-cig research was done. It would be disingenuous (and unconscionable) of us to argue that we should have access to safer, smoke-free products and pretend ST and ST users don't even exist.

The CASAA board and early members decided nearly from the day we formed that the right thing to do is support ALL tobacco harm reduction products. That is the best and most fair way to support vapers. An argument for one is an argument for the other.

 

[carlvphillips]

To add to what Kristin said:

ST use is still a lot more common than ecigs. The trajectories suggest that will change, but not for a while.

ST is the proven low-risk product. Everything we guess about the risks of ecigs is based on that actual knowledge. Moreover, ST is almost certainly lower risk than current-tech ecigs.

Basically, the conventional wisdom and established support for ecig based harm reduction comes from work done on ST. A substantial part of the research was supported by (pre-acquisition) USSTC and Swedish Match.

CASAA is an advocate for consumers who benefit from THR and those who might in the future. While most of the week-to-week action involves ecigs, it is still the case that ST plays the dominant role.

 

[Judge Dredd]

I think it's important to keep supporting smokeless tobacco so the people who oppose the use of electronic cigarettes don't think that we're just saying, "smoking bad, vaping good," which seems to always provoke the response of, "you're just smoking. There's no difference."

The goal is NOT to get every smoker to vape. The goal is to get smokers to quit smoking.

 

[hittman]

I think the OP would be surprised how many people on this forum alone either use or have tried snus to help them quit smoking. I think it's great that all forms of reduced risk products are being included.

 

[Luisa]

After about 6 months of using the Ecig a watching Casaa. It seem to me the CASAA is chairing a lot of dead weight with ST. I strongly fell the CASAA would benefit greatly by limiting it self to Ecig only activism. As far as I can tell I would guess the 95% of the money and membership come from vapors. So if this is the case why would CASAA support something that doesn't support them.
I started vapeeig a few month ago and by the time I got the lingo down from battery's mods cartos attys, APV, Egos, and on and on with new would of lingo to learn. What would I want to jump into a group that supports THR when we don't want the Ecig to be a tobacco products. I often wonder how many want a be Ecig advocates go to the CASAA website and leave and never come back because the have no clue on what THR means and really just don't care


That all being said I think the board members of Casaa are doing a great job but I just don't get the fascinations with smokeless tobacco.

There were 2 choices-classify ecigs as a drug or as tobacco. Thankfully a Federal Court ruled they would be classified as tobacco. If they had been classified as a drug, they would have been banned 4 years ago and not available today. No,we would prefer there to be a third classification--aTHR product-but that is not possible at this time and may never be possible.

 

[subversive]

I always thought the whole point was harm reduction. E-cigs are already a tobacco product according to the government, and that puts them in the same class as smokeless products whether we want it or not. I never even knew what a difference there was between smoking and other forms of tobacco until I started vaping and reading more. All these lives that have been lost to smoking when there are alternatives that the government refuses to acknowledge as much less harmful than cigarettes.........what a waste. There are no words for it.

 

[Stubby]

Sorry to say I didn't see this thread until someone posted a link in the Smokeless Tobacco section of the ECF. Kristin and Carl have covered it very well so not much to add to that. Something to keep in mind is that the same debate went on in 2009 when CASAA was first being formed and we where trying to get a handle on what it was actually going to be. There were some respected people from ECF who where advocating that CASAA (though it didn't have a name yet) be an e-cig only advocacy group. Fortunately they lost the debate.

I'll make a guess and say the great majority of ECF members think the idea of harm reduction when it comes to tobacco started and ends with e-cigs, not realizing the idea first came to light nearly 20 years ago when Brad Rodu started publishing papers on the real health risk (or lack of them) on smokeless tobacco. In Sweden it likely started well before that. E-cigs are just the new kid on the block.

It is not at all surprising that new people coming into the party are a bit lost when it comes to smokeless. Decades of brainwashing and bad information have had their effect.

 

[DC2]

I would LOVE to see this discussion taking place in the General Forum.

Any chance a moderator could move it there?
Maybe make a copy?

 

[kristin]

What would be the benefit of moving it away from the CASAA forum, DC2?

 

[sonicdsl]

This belongs here DC. Posts in this sub-forum still show in New Posts with everything else. Education is required.

 

[DC2]

What would be the benefit of moving it away from the CASAA forum, DC2?

I would love it if the general membership could see this discussion and the information being presented here.
These kinds of debates seem to work very well at making people more aware.

 

[kristin]

I think I'd rather see people directed here, if they have questions regarding CASAA's position on THR and ST, rather than open up a debate in the general forum? There is no debate. That debate happened back in 2009 (ad nauseam, lol) and was settled. CASAA has been supporting THR and ST as smoking alternatives for over 3 years and that won't change. It's the reason why our name is the "Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association" and not the "Consumer Advocates for Electronic Cigarettes Association." I see this thread as an honest question, but not a debate.

 

[hittman]

Kristin, you are very well spoken. I can definitely see why you are part of the organization. We are lucky to have you representing us.

 

[thew92]

I would LOVE to see this discussion taking place in the General Forum.

Any chance a moderator could move it there?
Maybe make a copy?

I put this in the CASAA forum because I didn't want to seem like I was knocking CASAA or saying people shouldn't be involved in CASSA because of the Smokeless Tobacco. I wanted to see what the hard core advocates thought of this.

 

[thew92]

If you weren't around in 2009, when CASAA first formed, you may not know how wrong it is to say that smokeless tobacco and THR doesn't support us. If it wasn't for the THR community, people like Dr. Carl Phillips, Brad Rodu, Paul Bergen, Bill Godshall and many others, CASAA (and the e-cigarette community & industry) wouldn't be where it is today. They've helped us immensely with their research on smoke-free tobacco and formulating our arguments and science to defend e-cigarettes not just as another vice, but a tobacco harm reduction product.

You are correct I wasn't around in 2009. But with more and more members and Ecigs users coming around everyday and having to learn about Cartos, Attys, E-juice, Mods, Egos, APVs, and so on. I think they get really confused with THR, NRT and the other terms out there. I personally think CASAA would be better served and serve it members if they just stuck to Vapor Nicotine.

E-cigarettes don't work for everyone.

They work for me and I am guess that they worked for the majority of the members of CASAA and posters on ECF.

There are over 8 million smoke-free tobacco users in the U.S. Long before e-cigarettes came on the scene,

Yes but the point is how many of the Smoke-less tobacco users are members of CASAA or activity campaign for the use of their product.


This is not a debate on THR. This is a debate on whether or not CASAA should be an "E-cig advocacy group" (In which THR could still be use as taking points) or a "Tobacco Harm Reduction" group.

Again I want to say that I respect every thing that CASAA has done. I think Kristin, Dr Carl Phillips and other members of CASAA are doing a great job this is just a spot where I see room for improvement.

 

[thew92]

I think the OP would be surprised how many people on this forum alone either use or have tried snus to help them quit smoking. I think it's great that all forms of reduced risk products are being included.

If there are a lot of members of this forum that use SNUS and members of CASAA that primarily use ST, then my point is mute and I believe CASAA should stick with THR. But I do not believe that is the case.

 

[thew92]

There were 2 choices-classify ecigs as a drug or as tobacco. Thankfully a Federal Court ruled they would be classified as tobacco. If they had been classified as a drug, they would have been banned 4 years ago and not available today. No,we would prefer there to be a third classification--aTHR product-but that is not possible at this time and may never be possible.

If the FDA deems the Ecig as a Tobacco product that would kill the Ecig industry. I don't think we need to concede this point yet. I am not a lawyer but I do believe that the Court ruled that Ecig where not a drug delivery device. And gave the opinion that Ecig could be a tobacco product. So it would take and act of Congress or a Supreme court ruling to over turn the Drug Delivery Device ruling. I am not sure about the opinion of the tobacco. But the 3rd class is what we should be fighting for.