Slightly confused about CASAA

[Vocalek]

Don't worry. The rest of us won't allow Webby to wave the white flag!

Seriously, though, Webby is not advocating that we give up, not at all. His point is that CASAA needs to be realistic about reduced-harm alternatives.

It is entirely possible (though I pray not) that e-cigarettes willl be made into contraband by the FDA. We won't have a clue until we hear Judge Leon's verdict.

Many of us have stocked up, but what happens if e-cigs are still contraband when our stash runs out? What happens to the 45 million Americans who had not heard about e-cigarettes in time to get stocked up? We need to get the truth out to smokers and their families.

The organizations that are supposed to be most concerned about our lung and heart health and with keeping us cancer-free have misleading information posted on their sites about alternatives like smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes. Their mantra is that "[insert product] is not a safe alternative to smoking."

These groups were the movers and shakers that prevailed on the U.S. government to put the same warning labels on smokeless tobacco products. Most smokers read the label or the [insert organization name] web site and erroneously conclude -- "Oh, these things are no safer than cigarette smoking. I might as well keep smoking."

Even the American version of snus, which has not had as many of the nitrosamines removed as the Swedish version, are about 95% safer than smoking! Did you know that? I didn't. Not until I started reading the information that Dr. Phillips, Dr. Rohu, and Dr. Seigel have made available.

This is a very enlightening article from the British Medical Journal, tobacco Control:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/31

 

[PhiHalcyon]

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).

With all due respect Kin,

U.S. ecig users cannot enable e-liquid to become a legal product. No matter how the ecig classification gets adjudicated by the courts as being warranted under the law, it is only responsible manufacturers who fully and dutifully engage with the FDA who have any chance of achieving a legal ecig solution.

As an American who has benifitted and learned from the ecig, I do not consider my battle to be with the FDA, but with the challenge of creating a product that can effectively achieve many of the benefits and advantages of the ecig. Ideally, without being hampered by the requirement of an FDA approval. Or, if it does require an FDA approval, be well-positioned to quickly and easily gain it.

Whether the ecig becomes nothing but a short-lived novel invention that changed everything, or an enduring smoking alternative solution, remains to be seen. In the meanwhile, I'll forsake the temptation to become a pointless and hopeless pawn of others, and choose to take matters into my own hands.

 

[kristin]

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.

It's exactly the opposite of how you're reading it, Kina.

What he's saying is that CURRENTLY all most people are currently doing is sitting around on forums and saying "It's not this or it's not that, so they should just leave us alone!" Pretty much akin to a head-in-the-sand mentality, because we know that they are not going to leave us alone! We need to be proactive. Up until now, most have only been reactive and indignant.

What Webby is saying is that we can't just decide for ourselves what e-cigs are (aside from the fact that even e-cig users can't even agree amongst themselves if it's a drug or tobacco or "other") and tell the government to go away. Well, we could, but we'd be fooling ourselves - they aren't going anywhere now. We have to deal with them.

At least, that's the way I read it and based on conversations with Webby, I'm pretty sure that is how he feels!

 

[Sun Vaporer]

It's exactly the opposite of how you're reading it, Kina.

What he's saying is that CURRENTLY all most people are currently doing is sitting around on forums and saying "It's not this or it's not that, so they should just leave us alone!" Pretty much akin to a head-in-the-sand mentality, because we know that they are not going to leave us alone! We need to be proactive. Up until now, most have only been reactive and indignant.

What Webby is saying is that we can't just decide for ourselves what e-cigs are (aside from the fact that even e-cig users can't even agree amongst themselves if it's a drug or tobacco) and tell the government to go away. Well, we could, but we'd be fooling ourselves - they aren't going anywhere now. We have to deal with them.

At least, that's the way I read it and based on conversations with Webby, I'm pretty sure that is how he feels!

Agreeing on wheather the e-cig is a drug or a tobacco product is a non-issue. To many, it is neither. The FDA calls it a drug as that meets their goal to de-facto ban them. Counsel for SE called it a tobacco product, becasuse at the time of filing the suit against the FDA, Tobacco classified products enjoyed the sanctity of non-regulation. That position evaporated to a good extent when new legislation went into effect giving the FDA regulation over tobacco products during the pendency of the case. Should Judge Leon argree that the e-cig is a tobacco product, the e-cig will still be subject to regulations that might very well render it non-effective for many consumers if the nicotine level is reduced.

Many of us are of the postion that the e-cig is neither a drug or a tobacco product, rather a product that, while being an alternative to smoking, has nothing to do with smoking, tobacco, and does not fit into a drug classification much the same way caffine is non-classified.

Sun

 

[Thulium]

Should Judge Leon argree that the e-cig is a tobacco product, the e-cig will still be subject to regulations that might very well render it non-effective for many consumers if the nicotine level is reduced.

I'm not sure I understand this portion, Sun. In all the legal pleadings I've seen in the SE case, the arguments generally revolved around marketing issues and regulatory jurisdiction. How does it follow to expect a reduction in the nicotine level? As far as I know, FDA never complained that e-cigs have "too much" nicotine--or did they?

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I'm not sure I understand this portion, Sun. In all the legal pleadings I've seen in the SE case, the arguments generally revolved around marketing issues and regulatory jurisdiction. How does it follow to expect a reduction in the nicotine level? As far as I know, FDA never complained that e-cigs have "too much" nicotine--or did they?

That is the pitfall now of the FDA having regulation of tobacco products now. The new legislation gave the FDA the authority to regulate the amount of nicotine in products. So it goes to follow, that if they are going to cut back on the allowable limits in cigarettes, the e-cig is readily aligned for the same kind of regulation.

The FDA has indeed commented over the last year about self-consumer dosing. That is why you may very well see bulk e-liquid gone and tamper proof cartridges come on board should the FDA's efforts for a de-facto ban fail.


Sun

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I just wanted to chime in here very quickly regarding something to consider... and that is how tobacco harm reduction products are regulated in the UK. My understanding is that there are three product categories: Tobacco, Harm Reduction Products and Nicotine Replacement Therapies.

From my understanding of the CASAA mission... this is definitely something to consider advocating here in the US as obviously, we have only two categories: Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapies.

This definitely brings other organizations like TobaccoHarmReduction.org into the realm of what CASAA is wanting to advocate and while I always say... be very careful of BT and their ulterior motives because Jodans is completely correct in his assumptions (yes, PMI in September of 2008 lobbied the UK Health Minister to make ecigs an NRT - and then 6 days later the WHO organization states the same thing)... However, it should not diminish the choice to the user.

 

[Vocalek]

I like it. HRPs.

 

[Webby]

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.

Not at all buddy. 8-o

I meant it as a low-voltage cattle prod to say that we can't continue to sit on the sidelines, turtle waxing our morals while the decisions are in the process of being made for us. It was a call for advocacy and activism. I firmly believe that public opinion will be the deciding factor.

As strongly as we all feel, politicians aren't swayed by templated letter writing campaigns (insert your congressman's name here) and they will side with the BT and BP lobbyist unless their constituency (i.e; us) make it clear that we are not a silent minority.

Whatever your rationale, we all agree that we want e-cigs kept as an available option for consumers. Stand up and be heard! Find out when your state senator is going to be speaking locally and be there with a few friends to ask questions. Send letters to the editor, call the local news and offer to be interviewed (you'd be surprised how often they have a slow news day and need content)

The list goes on. All of these will put e-cigs in front of the public and do much to dispell misconceptions and sway conventional wisdom toward the fact that e-cigs aren't just another way of getting around smoking bans.

 

[Vocalek]

With apologies to Lee Greenwood:

And I'll gladly stand up
next to you
and defend them still today
For there ain't no doubt I love my lungs (love my lungs)
God bless e-cigs today.

 

[Darmeen]

Just had a thought, and this seemed like the right thread to bring it up.

Has any organization approached the ACLU about what the FDA is doing? To me, this seems like a situation that is right up their alley.

If the ACLU were to side with safer alternatives to using traditional tobacco products, I would think that would go a LONG way to keep the FDA from butchering the e-cig into some ineffectual device that would pretty much force most of us back onto analogs.

 

[yvilla]

Darmeen, as much as I've been trying over the past year or so to brainstorm arguments that would bring the choice to use ecigs within the purview of doctrines such as equal protection and substantive due process, and as much as I would love it if we ecig consumers could hope to get some legal help from major organzations like the ACLU, I really don't think it's likely that we could count on that.

Realistically, I tend to think most wouldn't regard our access to ecigs as a constitutional rights or civil liberties issue. While the ACLU does support the concept of harm reduction in the context of its drug law reform work (eg, supporting needle exchange programs), when you take a look at the major issue areas it works in, such as capital punishment, racial justice, human rights, reproductive freedom, etc, it doesn't seem like our issue would fit within it's focus areas. (Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union).

I think we need to work hard to build up and strengthen our own advocacy organizations like CASAA (and RtV and ECA), so that we can engage in and win the public awareness, educational, legislative and legal battles we are faced with.

 

[Mac]

Just had a thought, and this seemed like the right thread to bring it up.

Has any organization approached the ACLU about what the FDA is doing? To me, this seems like a situation that is right up their alley.

If the ACLU were to side with safer alternatives to using traditional tobacco products, I would think that would go a LONG way to keep the FDA from butchering the e-cig into some ineffectual device that would pretty much force most of us back onto analogs.

I am not an organization, but yes I called and emailed them several months ago. My email was not responded to and the representative I spoke to had no idea what I was talking about. He sounded bored and uninterested. He told me in no uncertain terms that the organization was not interested in this issue at this time but that I might try again if the feds win in court.

No help for us from them I am afraid.

 

[BigJimW]

Like it says--An Alernative.


Sun

Of course you do know that the anti smoker zealots and Nazi stormtroopers like Banzhaf will be blind to the middle road, don't ya? These behavior modification groups don't want to hear of any "alternatives". To them, it's a clear cut case of "Quit" or "Die". Kinda like what Hitler did to the Jews. I only hope you're ready for them, because as many before you found out, these Nazi .......s can get quite ugly.

Even though I am not on the CASSA board, you can rest assured I will do whatever it takes to make them see the middle road.

Vape strong is all I have to say.

 

[Webby]

Even though I am not on the CASSA board, you can rest assured I will do whatever it takes to make them see the middle road.

Vape strong is all I have to say.

Big Jim,

You're as much CASAA as anyone -

Webby

 

[markarich159]

Just curious, and by no means am I being disrespectful or facetious, but, being that "harm reduction" is CASAA's ultimate aim; what is CASAA's view on harm reduction strategies for other "prohibited" pharamaceuticals. Do you intend to liaise with other harm reduction groups such as LEAP, drugpolicy.org, DRCNet, ssdp.org etc... I bring this up as I see the current "drug war" and US led drug prohibition as massive, wasteful policy failures.

 

[Mac]

Just curious, and by no means am I being disrespectful or facetious, but, being that "harm reduction" is CASAA's ultimate aim; what is CASAA's view on harm reduction strategies for other "prohibited" pharamaceuticals. Do you intend to liaise with other harm reduction groups such as LEAP, drugpolicy.org, DRCNet, ssdp.org etc... I bring this up as I see the current "drug war" and US led drug prohibition as massive, wasteful policy failures.

I happen to agree with you here. The drug war is a money machine and creates alot of criminals. Our system only works to increase law enforcement budgets. It sends otherwise non violent offenders off to a thug academy where they are forced to join gangs and begin a real life of crtime. But to do what you are suggesting would be a huge mistake. We are already outnumbered and outfinanced 10-1. Start throwing A bid for legal ...... into the mix and CASAA will have all the mass apeal of a leper colony. They are seperate issues and need to remain as such, if we are to have even a chance of victory.

 

[Mordred]

I happen to agree with you here. The drug war is a money machine and creates alot of criminals. Our system only works to increase law enforcement budgets. It sends otherwise non violent offenders off to a thug academy where they are forced to join gangs and begin a real life of crtime. But to do what you are suggesting would be a huge mistake. We are already outnumbered and outfinanced 10-1. Start throwing A bid for legal ...... into the mix and CASAA will have all the mass apeal of a leper colony. They are seperate issues and need to remain as such, if we are to have even a chance of victory.

This.

In my line of work, I am confronted on a daily basis with drugs and I think I have a damn good idea of what's wrong with the system.

I mean, nobody's debating that mainlining H is bad for you and the same goes for most drugs. But the reason that most people end up in jail is simple: the law says they're criminals. Is that dude who never got through school and found himself hopeless on the street doing crack or whatever a bad person? No. But because the law says his habit is illegal, he has to pay ten times the real price for his fix and that means that he will have to either sell or steal to get it. Simple as that.

The ONLY way out of this is legalizing. At a guess, 70% of the inmates in our jails are drug users who would not be in jail if their drug was legally available.

I see judges asking them: "Why haven't you got a job? Why haven't you got a stable address? Have you done detox? How can we release you without those?". But that's completely backwards. These people need to be able to stabilize their habit before they can look into getting a job, a home and, ultimately, treatment. Forcing the addicts to chase their next fix 24/7 is what really destroys their lives. If they could just get it from a cornershop like smokers get their cigarettes, they'd have the time and opportunity to sort out the mess.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but I had to get that off my chest.

As for Webby's comments, I agree that some sort of regulation will have to be put into place. Currently, we know very little about where our e-liquid comes from and what it actually contains. In THEORY, the e-cigarette is perfectly safe. In practice, however, quality control is not the forte of the Chinese industry (no offense), so I'm all for the FDA testing of e-liquid.

Finally, the issue of "supporting big tobacco" was brought up. This line of reasoning is completely counter-productive. First of all, PM, BAT and Reynolds are not our enemies. They have already expanded into harm-reduction alternatives, with Reynolds especially pushing hard into the snus market (the swedish version of their snus is actually pretty decent) and PM is following suit. I see the fact that these companies are exploring these markets as a good thing. They have the means to produce high-quality products and to market them successfully, meaning more people will gain access to alternatives to smoking. Ultimately, these companies don't really care whether they sell us the tobacco as cigarettes, snus or just extract the nicotine from it for e-liquid, as long as they make a profit. If there is a demand for these products, they will make them. Now, they may initially want to slow down the process, so that they can secure a share of the market, but they will go there.

 

[markarich159]

The ONLY way out of this is legalizing. At a guess, 70% of the inmates in our jails are drug users who would not be in jail if their drug was legally available.

I see judges asking them: "Why haven't you got a job? Why haven't you got a stable address? Have you done detox? How can we release you without those?". But that's completely backwards. These people need to be able to stabilize their habit before they can look into getting a job, a home and, ultimately, treatment. Forcing the addicts to chase their next fix 24/7 is what really destroys their lives. If they could just get it from a cornershop like smokers get their cigarettes, they'd have the time and opportunity to sort out the mess.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but I had to get that off my chest.

Sorry for continuing the derail, but Mordred, you hit the nail on the head. That's why the Swiss ...... program is such a resounding success. Instead of jailing ...... addicts , they give them clean pharmaceutical ...... for free. Crime has dropped ENORMOUSLY. HIV/Hepatitis transmission has dropped. But the real success story is the addicts themselves. For the first time,for some of them in years, they are able to gain stable employment, housing, education, etc... and become contributing members of society; also a staggering 20%(4 times the percentage in prohibition countries) have actually become completely sober because of the increase in their life opportunities the program has given them. The pilot program was SO successful, the citizens of Switzerland voted to make the program permanent by referendum. This is pretty much how it was prior the 1914 and the Harrison Narcotic Act in the USA. Ok, back to our regularly scheduled thread. Sorry again.

 

[Territoo]

Having once worked in a maxiumum security prison, I've seen a lot of prisoners with drug related offences, although I'd have to say that most of what I dealt with weren't those who were simply users caught burglarizing to be able to afford their next fix. Those offenders were in lower security facilities, or perhaps their sentences were short enough they never made it out of the county prison before they were paroled. I'm not sure I agree w/ the 70% figure, but the prison system is overcrowded and there's a lot of drug (and alcohol) related offenses. Most of what I dealt with are the dealers and those whose drug related crimes were more violent: aggravated assault, murder, DUI related crimes. I think the sad part is that the 70% figure is too high because of the sexual and child molestation crimes. Although drugs/alcohol may have been a factor in these crimes, that wasn't the big issue.