I'm new to this but I've learned from life that most things don't need improving etc CASAA TY for all u do and to all who have joined and supported. the bigger the membership the more the resources become.
Should CASAA drop smokeless tabacoo from their platform and every drop THR.
- Thread starter thew92
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The question I am posing is would CASAA have a bigger membership as a "E-cig Advocacy Group" or a "tobacco Harm Reduction" group.
And Yes the members of CASAA do a great job and do it on a volunteer basis. We are lucky to have them.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think CASAA is growing extremely well being a THR organization. In our first two years we gained 1,904 new members. In the first quarter of this year CASAA has already gained 1,236 new members! As e-cigarette use grows, so does CASAA and so will understanding of THR.
I honestly believe most people "get" THR and support our mission to help ALL smokers who need/want an alternative, not just people who choose e-cigarettes. Our mission includes education and changing minds and if we need to educate people and change minds about THR to get them to join, we are just accomplishing our mission. CASAA will not become exclusively an "e-cigarette advocacy group." That's like asking the American Cancer Society to become just a breast cancer research advocacy group and ignore the other cancer victims. There are a few ecig-specific advocacy groups out there already. If people want to join them, too and add to our efforts, that is great. But we do not believe CASAA's THR advocacy diminishes our fight for vaping. THR advocacy IS fighting for vaping. If there are people who don't understand that then we just need to work harder to help them understand.
Personally, I feel we are much more credible with legislators and the general public if we aren't just an e-cigarette group anyhow. Our support of both e-cigarettes and smoke-free tobacco in THR advocacy helps protect us from looking like we are just a front group for "Big E-cig" or "Big Tobacco." Having CASAA be a THR organization benefits the e-cigarette users because we can't just be dismissed as a bunch of enthusiasts or "fanboys" just "protecting our addiction of choice." That makes us much more effective I think. I, the rest of the board and much of our membership truly believe in overall THR advocacy. It's not just some act that we can drop.
I honestly believe most people "get" THR and support our mission to help ALL smokers who need/want an alternative, not just people who choose e-cigarettes. Our mission includes education and changing minds and if we need to educate people and change minds about THR to get them to join, we are just accomplishing our mission. CASAA will not become exclusively an "e-cigarette advocacy group." That's like asking the American Cancer Society to become just a breast cancer research advocacy group and ignore the other cancer victims. There are a few ecig-specific advocacy groups out there already. If people want to join them, too and add to our efforts, that is great. But we do not believe CASAA's THR advocacy diminishes our fight for vaping. THR advocacy IS fighting for vaping. If there are people who don't understand that then we just need to work harder to help them understand.
Personally, I feel we are much more credible with legislators and the general public if we aren't just an e-cigarette group anyhow. Our support of both e-cigarettes and smoke-free tobacco in THR advocacy helps protect us from looking like we are just a front group for "Big E-cig" or "Big Tobacco." Having CASAA be a THR organization benefits the e-cigarette users because we can't just be dismissed as a bunch of enthusiasts or "fanboys" just "protecting our addiction of choice." That makes us much more effective I think. I, the rest of the board and much of our membership truly believe in overall THR advocacy. It's not just some act that we can drop.
[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.
[/QUOTE]
I have to agree...my husband quit smoking around the same time I did - give or take a few months (I quit in Nov 2011 and he quit in Jan 2012)...he started using ecigs also, but because HE CAN'T TASTE OR SMELL they didn't work for him. Not wanting to go back to smoking (hard for me to be around it anymore) he compromised and started ST. I figure whatever works for someone who wants to quit is the way to go--why shoot someone in the head if they are not doing what you are? If it works, great! If not...keep looking...just my thoughts..
[/QUOTE]I have to agree...my husband quit smoking around the same time I did - give or take a few months (I quit in Nov 2011 and he quit in Jan 2012)...he started using ecigs also, but because HE CAN'T TASTE OR SMELL they didn't work for him. Not wanting to go back to smoking (hard for me to be around it anymore) he compromised and started ST. I figure whatever works for someone who wants to quit is the way to go--why shoot someone in the head if they are not doing what you are? If it works, great! If not...keep looking...just my thoughts..
I understand where you are coming from, but I think CASAA is growing extremely well being a THR organization. In our first two years we gained 1,904 new members. In the first quarter of this year CASAA has already gained 1,236 new members! As e-cigarette use grows, so does CASAA and so will understanding of THR.
I honestly believe most people "get" THR and support our mission to help ALL smokers who need/want an alternative, not just people who choose e-cigarettes. Our mission includes education and changing minds and if we need to educate people and change minds about THR to get them to join, we are just accomplishing our mission. CASAA will not become exclusively an "e-cigarette advocacy group." That's like asking the American Cancer Society to become just a breast cancer research advocacy group and ignore the other cancer victims. There are a few ecig-specific advocacy groups out there already. If people want to join them, too and add to our efforts, that is great. But we do not believe CASAA's THR advocacy diminishes our fight for vaping. THR advocacy IS fighting for vaping. If there are people who don't understand that then we just need to work harder to help them understand.
Personally, I feel we are much more credible with legislators and the general public if we aren't just an e-cigarette group anyhow. Our support of both e-cigarettes and smoke-free tobacco in THR advocacy helps protect us from looking like we are just a front group for "Big E-cig" or "Big Tobacco." Having CASAA be a THR organization benefits the e-cigarette users because we can't just be dismissed as a bunch of enthusiasts or "fanboys" just "protecting our addiction of choice." That makes us much more effective I think. I, the rest of the board and much of our membership truly believe in overall THR advocacy. It's not just some act that we can drop.
I am glad you understand where I am coming from. It is just my personal belief that the THR argument takes a while to grasp and might be a turn off to new vapors. We could argue to death about it but I thinks its a real discussion worth having. There is also no real way of determining if the smokeless tobacco platform is a turn-off to new vapors. All I can say when I was a new vapor I was like "..." is that. I get it somewhat now.
Yes you have the American Cancer Society but there is another niche Cancer group that is much bigger than the ACA.
I personally think the Ecig needs to be separated from tobacco products as much as possible.
If dropping ST is out of the question have you considered adding Nicotine Gum, N-haler and the Lozenge to the CASAA platform as an alternative to smoking? And becoming a "Nicotine Harm Reduction" group. I am not sure if there might be some legal problems with this or not.
Once CASAA is successful at educating the public that smoke-free tobacco is a relatively safe product, a preferred alternative to smoking and socially acceptable, then e-cigarettes' association with other smoke-free "tobacco products" won't even be an issue. It will be a given that if smoke-free tobacco is "OK" then smoke-free, tobacco-derived nicotine products like e-cigarettes are OK. Eliminating the stigma of ST use is a major goal because only then will people accept that there is nothing wrong with nicotine use, too. Until using smoke-free tobacco and nicotine is socially accepted, we will still be fighting use bans and higher taxes on e-cigarettes whether they are categorized as "tobacco products" or not. I believe trying to distance e-cigarettes from tobacco in the minds of the public is an exercise in futility as long as they contain nicotine and mimic smoking. It's like trying to sell a vitamin in a powder form that you sniff through a straw and trying to get the public not to associate it with you-know-what.
Personally, I believe the only way to get social acceptance of recreational nicotine use is to convince the public that there is nothing wrong with it anymore than there is drinking caffeine. But a public that still believes smoke-free tobacco use is harmful will never accept e-cigarette use either. Convince the public that smoke-free tobacco is acceptable and e-cigarette use will naturally follow. But try to convince people that something that contains the same "toxic and addictive" drug as tobacco and looks like smoking, without educating them that what they think they know about tobacco and nicotine is wrong, then they will never accept it. I believe it's that ANTZ myth that there "is no safe tobacco" that prejudices them against nicotine and therefore, against vaping. But change how they feel about smoke-free tobacco and that all changes. That is why I don't personally have a problem with e-cigarettes being a "tobacco product" because my goal is to change attitudes about smoke-free tobacco products, including how they should be regulated and taxed!
It wouldn't matter to the ANTZ one bit if e-cigs where separated from tobacco. They would look at it as just another vile addictive nicotine product that needs to be snuffed out (pun intended).
The problem with trying to separate e-cigs from ST is that all you are really doing is throwing away the science of THR, and the science is overwhelmingly our biggest asset. Without that e-cigs would be just another high tech fad and very likely would have never caught on to the extent that it has. It was the studies on ST that lead us to believe e-cigs are a legit reduced harm way of using nicotine. It is impossible to separate THR from e-cigs. It would be like cutting off your legs and trying to run a marathon.
I know a good many people would support what you are saying. I know because I have seen it to many times. But all they are really doing is playing along with the same lies that have been going on for decades. The lie is that tobacco and nicotine are the problem, but the science tells us the real problem is combustion. What is needed is to educate the public at large, and especially tobacco users, on the concepts of THR. Trying to stand up and say "we are different from other smokeless products and need to be treated that way" is a lie and would be a misguided way to build a movement.
Last edited:
this boggles my mind. how can ST be a force for smoking cessation when I've never seen a female willing to spit all day. they mostly think it is disgusting dont they?
Snus, tobacco lozenges, strips and sticks are all "spit-less." Snus even comes in a "mini" size that fits a smaller mouth. At the same time male smokers were declining, female smoking was on the rise. Between 1965 and 2009, male smoking decreased 55% while female smoking has decreased only 45%. Since "quitting smoking" could include switching to smokeless products, the fact that there were no appealing smokeless products for women could be part of why they still smoke. (That and the myth that smoking is less likely to cause disfiguring oral cancer.)
This is also exactly why the ANTZ campaign against smokeless "tobacco candy" is so sinister. Women vapers prefer non-tobacco flavors far more than men, so these newer smokeless products (that don't require spitting and come in pleasant flavors) are far more likely to help female smokers who find e-cigarettes don't work for them. But the ANTZ claim those products are only made to entice children to get them addicted so they start smoking. THAT is what boggles the mind.
I've tried the tobacco lozenges. The "Java" flavor was pleasant enough, but the nicotine was too strong for me. Turns out I vape mostly for the hand/mouth thing and not the nicotine. However, women I know who depend on the nicotine have told me they like the products. I know that Julie Woessner, my fellow CASAA director, loves the tobacco sticks. (Basically finely ground, flavored tobacco on the end of a toothpick.) But now, thanks to the ANTZ claims, the products are very difficult to find. Snus is also not easy to find, but easier to get than the dissolvable tobacco products. All the ANTZ have accomplished is to leave the two most unappealing tobacco products widely available, leaving most female smokers choosing to continue to smoke or mostly using e-cigarettes but unable to give up those last 2 or 3 cigarettes a day.
http://casaa.org/Smokefree_Types.html
Some interesting numbers regarding the smoking rates that people should know...
The ANTZ like to claim that their methods work. Higher taxes, banning flavors, smoking bans, insurance rates, not hiring smokers and billions spent on cessation programs and pharmaceutical products has reduced the smoking rate from 25.7% in 1991 to just 19% in 2011 (20 years.) Wow! A 25% reduction. Still needs improvement, but not bad considering the smoking rate in 1981 was between 32% and 33%, right?
But if you actually look at the numbers the CDC reported for those years, the clear picture of success gets quite fuzzy.
In 1991, there were 46.3 million smokers (and the number was nearly the same ten years later in 2001 at 46.2 million.)
In 2011, there were 43.8 million smokers. Just a measly 5.4% (2.5 million) reduction in the number of smokers after 20 years. Would anyone reasonably call that a success?
So, see the LIE that is the ANTZ list of "proven, evidence-based" methods! We NEED overall tobacco harm reduction policies, because people simply are NOT quitting and there are 1,200 NEW, regular smokers every DAY.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1991
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2001
Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2011
The ANTZ like to claim that their methods work. Higher taxes, banning flavors, smoking bans, insurance rates, not hiring smokers and billions spent on cessation programs and pharmaceutical products has reduced the smoking rate from 25.7% in 1991 to just 19% in 2011 (20 years.) Wow! A 25% reduction. Still needs improvement, but not bad considering the smoking rate in 1981 was between 32% and 33%, right?
But if you actually look at the numbers the CDC reported for those years, the clear picture of success gets quite fuzzy.
In 1991, there were 46.3 million smokers (and the number was nearly the same ten years later in 2001 at 46.2 million.)
In 2011, there were 43.8 million smokers. Just a measly 5.4% (2.5 million) reduction in the number of smokers after 20 years. Would anyone reasonably call that a success?
So, see the LIE that is the ANTZ list of "proven, evidence-based" methods! We NEED overall tobacco harm reduction policies, because people simply are NOT quitting and there are 1,200 NEW, regular smokers every DAY.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1991
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2001
Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2011
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
