Slightly confused about CASAA

[Jodans]

Based on the board being elected from E-cig users/forum members and the general discussions I had seen regarding E-cigs, I was under the apparently mistaken, impression that CASAA was about PVs.
I thought it was a group being organized to help bring PVs into public view, help dispel rumors, give better PR, maybe arrange some ways of getting PVs tested to improve government outlook on them, and otherwise advocate for PVs. All of these ideas I was and am completely behind, however it seems that it is not PVs that CASAA is advocating/interested in as much as smoking 'alternatives'.
My big question (I have searched and been unable to find the answer to) is what are these OTHER 'alternatives' that are being reference to in the plural of alternative?
My first thought would be snus or other forms of ST? If this is the case, would we not be helping big tobacco whom seems perfectly content letting PVs get shut down? I thought the idea was to get people away from tobacco and the unhealthy lifestyle of tobacco use to the healthier vaping lifestyle? Or at the least, a rally point for vapers that want to do something to be able to come together and fight this possible shutdown/ban that is hovering over the horizon?

Are there other alternatives I am missing or do not know about?
Any calrification on this that can be offered to help me understand what I seem to be missing would be great, thanks!

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Based on the board being elected from E-cig users/forum members and the general discussions I had seen regarding E-cigs, I was under the apparently mistaken, impression that CASAA was about PVs.
I thought it was a group being organized to help bring PVs into public view, help dispel rumors, give better PR, maybe arrange some ways of getting PVs tested to improve government outlook on them, and otherwise advocate for PVs. All of these ideas I was and am completely behind, however it seems that it is not PVs that CASAA is advocating/interested in as much as smoking 'alternatives'.
My big question (I have searched and been unable to find the answer to) is what are these OTHER 'alternatives' that are being reference to in the plural of alternative?
My first thought would be snus or other forms of ST? If this is the case, would we not be helping big tobacco whom seems perfectly content letting PVs get shut down? I thought the idea was to get people away from tobacco and the unhealthy lifestyle of tobacco use to the healthier vaping lifestyle? Or at the least, a rally point for vapers that want to do something to be able to come together and fight this possible shutdown/ban that is hovering over the horizon?

Are there other alternatives I am missing or do not know about?
Any calrification on this that can be offered to help me understand what I seem to be missing would be great, thanks!

Glad you spoke up Jodans as it shows "error" in marketing that has plenty of time to be corrected. I see what you are saying, as the CAASA is all about PV's yet the plural of alternatives does create an ambiguity--one that can be corrected.

CAASA is just starting out, so give it time to walk before it runs.

Sun

 

[Jodans]

Glad you spoke up Jodans as it shows "error" in marketing that has plenty of time to be corrected. I see what you are saying, as the CAASA is all about PV's yet the plural of alternatives does create an ambiguity--one that can be corrected.

CAASA is just starting out, so give it time to walk before it runs.

Sun

I can understand that it may be slow starting out. However, I thought one would be safe to assume that a group would know what it is setting out FOR?
My main concern came in when reading the Slogan thread where I saw a few things 'shot down' for being too E-cig specific, which to me seems quite a dangerous maneuver if it is a group set to specifically advocate for E-cigs as my impression was.

 

[Webby]

CASAA advocates all smoke-free alternatives, not just e-cigarettes.


Of the things we are NOT is a purely e-cig cheerleading group. This is a group that promotes healthier alternatives to sucking tobacco smoke into lungs. Harm reduction is such an obvious cause, yet it's opposed by many in power. Smokers need reduced-risk products -- not one, but many. CASAA’s effort is to pursue knowledge and promote safer ways to exit cigarette smoking. It certainly includes e-cigarettes, but should include all the other available alternatives as well.

Efforts are underway to obtain the proof of safety and efficacy that will be needed for acceptance of our harm reduction practice. Our belief is that when the studies are in, we'll find this is the safest, most effective alternative to cigarette smoking.


But despite what some claim, we do not know that e-Cigs are safe. We do know that they appear to be, From the FDA's own studies, they are at least 99% safer than tobacco cigarettes and there are other studies in accord with this, Based on the data we have, they certainly qualify as an effective reduced harm alternative. Fighting for e-cigs and ONLY e-cigs is an argument lost before it starts. There is simply no hard proof to support them as safe. There IS plenty of misinformation out there and that is one of CASAA’s goals – to provide a repository of substantiated data and studies.


There are a lot of different fronts on which groups are fighting to keep e-cigs legally available. Some are advocating classification of e-cigs as just a variation on tobacco products. (This would certainly moot the drug-dispenser argument) One thing is for certain, there are a number of laws both state and federal waiting in the wings and winding through the courts and none of them are in our favor.

Like it or not, nicotine liquid (what we're really talking about) hit the US by storm and caught everybody by surprise. Users, the government, everybody. The government is not going to continue to allow people to sell something made from a toxic chemical (with as much oversight as bathtub gin) for much longer. That's why we created an FDA in the first place, so ....... couldn't be mixed with turpentine and sold as a cure-all.

So why do we care? because what the FDA says is safe - is safe. Talk to Uncle Sam's hand. It's no conspiracy theory to say some sort of regulation or ban is going to happen. Whether it's the SE case or the dozens of state laws winding through the courts right now. Public opinion is our best tool to sway politicians who will decide just how far that hammer is going to fall. If anyone thinks Judge Leon is going to say we can all just go about our business, they are sadly mistaken.

It does not matter how many white papers and reports and lawyers we have, the FDA has already said they aren't safe. That is what the public currently believes. Outreach, educating the public of the facts and witnessing will help make our argument that will sway the public opinion that will sway politicians. Medical studies are a vital part of that total effort but will not win this battle alone, How many potentially life saving drugs are being held up by the FDA? How many millions and how many years have been expended by others on their behalf?

Armchair debating in the forums and waxing philosophical isn’t going to help us keep e-cigs available. If we’re all truly in agreement about that goal we need to do away with any puritan views on this being all about e-cigs. If CASAA were purely an e-cig-only advocacy group we would fall on our faces. It doesn’t mean we are playing into Big Tobacco's hands, it just means we need to keep an eye on all fronts and not lose sight of the goal on a misguided stance of principal.

Bottom line, we can't continue to say:

They aren't tobacco.
They aren't drugs.
They aren't taxable.
Now leave us alone.

 

[kristin]

As Webby says.

Additionally, e-cigs don't work for some people. They find something "missing" like an itch they can't scratch - vaping works 100% for me, but my husband has found it lacking something. (There is some interesting work being done on tobacco alkaloids that may help that.) Anyhow, those folks use products like snus - which is also a good alternative to smoking. (My husband now uses snus to augment his e-cig.)

Swedish snus is thought much cleaner than American snus and it is often, mistakenly, assumed it causes mouth cancer like chew. This has been disproven. It is also inexplicably banned in most of Europe and could be banned elsewhere (ironically, chew is legal there.)

 

[Webby]

Good points.

We're not pro-snus necessarily either, we're pro "anything that keeps e-cigs available while we find out truth". Anything to keep from pulling 4000 chemicals and 60 known carcinogens into our lungs.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Good points.

We're not pro-snus necessarily either, we're pro "anything that keeps e-cigs available while we find out truth". Anything to keep from pulling 4000 chemicals and 60 known carcinogens into our lungs.

Glad you clarifed that Webby as even I got a little confused there. As many here, I do not want to be advocating tobacco in any way, form or fashion---that is a whole different came then an E-CiG or PV. As this slogan shows the clear choose to advocate that does not enjoy the santity of tobacco is:

Like it says--An Alernative.


Sun

 

[kristin]

Right, Webby! Just using snus as an example!

 

[Webby]

Absolutely old friend...

I just had a terrifying brush with "The Big C" and am not advocating tobacco myself. I am all about keeping e-cigs legal. Judge Leon can classify them are hot shaving cream dispensers for all I care. E-cigs are a different animal and time will prove that. We just have to push to keep them from being brushed under the rug while this plays out.

Glad you clarifed that Webby as even I got a little confused there. As many here, I do not want to be advocating tobacco in any way, form or fashion---that is a whole different came then an E-CiG or PV. As this slogan shows the clear choose to advocate that does not enjoy the santity of tobacco is:

Like it says--An Alernative.


Sun

 

[Vocalek]

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the web site Tobaccoharmreduction.org

From the entry page, there are links to information about nicotine, smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and "pharmaceutical nicotine" (aka NRT). The FAQs are very informative. FAQ menu. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

The biggest hurdle we are up against is that the tobacco control community appears to have as its ultimate goal wiping out all use of nicotine, rather than saving lives. The concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction is based on the public health principle that reducing illness and saving lives should be the top priority.

 

[Jodans]

Kristin, this is EXACTLY what I am asking here. What are the alternatives, and why are we supporting them?

I can understand the why of advocating tobacco free alternatives.
I never knew there was some sort of Snus from Sweden that is better than the Camel stuff that instantly pops in my head when I see this word. After reading what Kristin said about the husband, and Webbys response to it, and some brief researching online I can understand why some tobacco products would be considered too.

Though unless it is just snus that is in consideration, it still leaves me to question WHAT are the other alternatives?
To me, I prefer to only get behind things I believe in and am informed about.
In example: I'd hate to be a part of CASAA and these alternatives that I haven't heard of, to find a product we are supporting to be intravenous tobacco leaf extract.
While a ludicrous idea that I am (pretty) certain would never happen, it works to illustrate my point. I want to ensure that what CASAA supports are also things I would support as well.

I think too many people in this world say, "That's a brilliant idea!" and jump on board to support an ideal that sounds good without taking the time to investigate a little further before dedicating their time and energy.
To be honest, I'm guilty of doing that myself with CASAA. I said, "Hey, this is a great idea!" and started reading to see if there was anything I may be able to offer (haven't found anything yet, sadly.).
Then I find out that it wasn't what I thought it was initially, which mind you I am not calling a bad thing, and I needed this question answered to with a clear conscience proceed with involvement in CASAA. While I am relatively certain CASAA is not out to harm or defraud anyone, nor is it wanting to deliver us unto the jaws of the FDA/ASH/Big whatever, I still need to make sure it is something I can believe in.
For me, there are not any other motives for starting this thread other than that "What are we supporting?"

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Absolutely old friend...

I just had a terrifying brush with "The Big C" and am not advocating tobacco myself. I am all about keeping e-cigs legal. Judge Leon can classify them are hot shaving cream dispensers for all I care. E-cigs are a different animal and time will prove that. We just have to push to keep them from being brushed under the rug while this plays out.

No Problem Webby--and they just may have to find them classifying the E-cig as something other then a drug or a tobacco product. I do not think vaping the saving cream would have a good taste though, but I think I will give it a try!!!



Sun

 

[Jodans]

Wow a lot of posts went by while I was typing that out. (Was doing my best to not sound argumentative.)
Thank you Elaine, I'll take a gander at that. Am I safe to assume the things they speak of there are the things CASAA will be supporting?

 

[kristin]

Jodans,

This is our most recent draft of our mission statement:

"Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives."

We want the availability of effective, reduced harm products that have acceptable safety standards. Obviously, unless they prove that "intravenous tobacco leaf extract" is significantly safer, viable and more effective than cigarette smoking, we aren't going to get behind it! It's more about making sure that reduced harm products are available for the legal adults who choose to use them. If you believe that "intravenous tobacco leaf extract" has been proven safer and more effective for you than smoking, well, that should be your choice. (I know that is an extreme example, highly unlikely and I only use it as a tongue-in-cheek example, but bear in mind that there are a lot of people who believe e-cigs aren't any safer and want to take those away from us, as well.)

 

[Jodans]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

Jodans--you are not dense at all---bottom line is to see that the privilage of vaping can be protected and that the PV can be proven at least reasonably safe to be an alternative to smoking.


Sun

 

[Treece]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

You really should check out Vocalek's suggestion: tobaccoharmreduction.org. There's a lot of information there, including studies that show smokeless tobacco is, in fact, much safer than smoking. There's more evidence to support smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction product than there are for PVs, actually.

That said, I'm so glad to hear this is CASAA's direction. There's contention in the tobacco control movement over harm reduction, and many are reluctant to speak out about it because of the extremist backlash. Until e-cigs, that contention revolved around smokeless tobacco. Maybe e-cigs will be the catalyst that pushes the more moderate/reasonable/scientific minds in tobacco control onto the side of harm reduction.

 

[kristin]

So, what I am understanding here, is there aren't any 'safer' methods in mind, just the idea that we want them and want people to know about them if/when they come out?
I'm starting to feel like I may be a little dense over here.

Not dense at all.

Of course, being that the founding board members of CASAA are primarily e-cig owners, most of the members are e-cig owners and a couple board members are even e-cig retailers, the ability to have and use e-cigs will always be very important to the organization - we just don't want to leave out other important smokeless alternatives, for people who can't use (or get) e-cigs.

The most important thing is that reduced harm alternatives are made available and acceptable - rather than just the "quit or die" mindset.

 

[Jodans]

Oh look, a lightbulb!
I believe I get it now.
Thanks everyone.

 

[kinabaloo]

Bottom line, we can't continue to say:

They aren't tobacco.
They aren't drugs.
They aren't taxable.
Now leave us alone.

Many will feel great disquiet at these words. It sounds very much like 'surrender!'. A sleight of hand whereby the 'win' would be entirely on their terms.

Many will see CASSA as the 'smiling face' of the FDA / BP empire.

The reality is that they are safer than freely available cigarettes (and snus), why should e-cigs be controlled as drugs? Why should a sin tax be applied when unlike smoking and alcohol use there are no health or social costs?

Just saying. 'Being realistic' can get too close to cop out.

We should engage with the FDA as much as we can, but with our heads held high and our own agenda (based on harm reduction for example).