FDA So where is the outcry from the vendors?

[wv2win]

I disagree with most of that. Vehemently. Which is not to the point.
My point was that comments like that are divisive in here, and to take the bait and argue it with you, which I most certainly could, would be counter-productive.
I guess no way to get you guys to give it a rest, oh well.

You can disagree all you want, but when it comes to vaping, the FACTS support my position. Many of us have listed here on ECF many times the national politicians who beginning in 2009 have been calling for the ban of vaping. They all have one thing in common, they are all far left progressive liberals. And BTW, I am not a conservative member of the other party. Just a moderate Independent. The dilemma we are facing is 99% the result of two groups: the Big Pharm industry (and the ANTZ they support) and liberal national politicians. It is moot now, but a warning for the future. Our best bet, politically, as Bill Godshaw has advised, is too garner the support of those opposed to these politicians on a number of political issues.

 

[Devonmoonshire]

It's definitely not your #1 above. #2 is more probable but I doubt that, also. More likely, the FDA is coordinating with the liberal politicians who have been calling for a ban for several years and the liberal media, to do a series of media stories extolling how they are protecting the ignorant public from the many dangers posed by vaping. They have done a pretty good job this last 12 months combined with the liberal national politicians and the media who supports them.

The thing is that when FOX News reports here in San Diego they actually do interviews with vapers and store owners to allow them to give our side of the story. Now I know that ALL News Agencies are driven by ratings and in most cases very biased one way or the other in the political arena. That fact is beyond dispute in any way because it has been proven to be true. I just really like seeing the Vape Store Owners on Television telling it how it is and not being silenced and only allowing the Scum Bag control freaks to speak publicly on the issue

 

[wv2win]

The thing is that when FOX News reports here in San Diego they actually do interviews with vapers and store owners to allow them to give our side of the story. Now I know that ALL News Agencies are driven by ratings and in most cases very biased one way or the other in the political arena. That fact is beyond dispute in any way because it has been proven to be true. I just really like seeing the Vape Store Owners on Television telling it how it is and not being silenced and only allowing the Scum Bag control freaks to speak publicly on the issue

Well, Fox News, nationally, has been the only media outlet, who provides more positive commentary on vaping than negative.

 

[Devonmoonshire]

Well, Fox News, nationally, has been the only media outlet, who provides more positive commentary on vaping than negative.

That is Very True, I hesitate to speculate why, but I do know some of their big names and most likely staff are in fact vapers themselves so even though it is self serving to project that image it is still good overall for us as a whole.

 

[aikanae1]

This is what I was talking about. I made purchases based on this email and to my knowledge, VCV hasn't provided support in the fight against CA AB1500. They are not alone in that category. I love VCV and want to think highly of them. There may be more to this than I know. Like I said, they are not alone so I'm not thrilled about pointing them out on this.

At the same time there are other's who I know have done things to help support vapers. Several manufacturers made a great music vid ("Vaperaction"), Njoy sent a lawyer and got in on committee meetings, RTS has made financial contributions, Vapor Rev started the #IMPROOF movement that some other B&M's have joined (FB and YouTube - ongoing). I know there must be many more.

I'd rather list the vendors who are taking steps to support vaping.
I don't want calls to action to become a marketing tool.

Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread. I just saw this and had to respond.

Here's some outcry from Velvet Cloud Vapor, which makes e-liquid...

This has been at the top of their site for a couple weeks now..

SALE: 25% off!! Use code sayNOAB1500 at checkout! Ends Monday! & Say No to NOAB1500

That last sentence is also a link to CASAA's Call to Action..

CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648)


In addition to some stuff on their Facebook, if you're subscribed to their email list, you would have received this email the day after the FDA proposal came out...


Don't let the FDA take e-cigs away!‏


The FDA has spoken

So here is a last reminder & a discount...

The battle is going to be long and tough. Luckily we have a little more time with the FDA than we do with the state of California. So here is a last word on California's proposed legislation - it's going to be a fight. So is taking on the FDA. So, get ready - because what we do here today... how much we kick, scream and shout - will affect history, and the future of vaping as we know it. This is a seminal moment in our history.

We're giving you 25% off today to raise some awareness and funds to fight! The checkout code is sayNOAB1500 , please use it at checkout at VelvetCloudVapor.com. Unfortunately, the California legislature may just end our ability to sell or buy e-liquid or vaping supplies online. If you head to our site and take part in this sale, you'll notice a banner at the top of the site. If you live in California, please consider clicking the banner and taking action. We will organize against this. Without internet competition and choice, you - the end user - will be harmed. We need to fight.

We're hereby dedicating a large portion of all our proceeds to fighting for your right to vape. More details coming up soon, but we will begin advert campaigns and lobbying missions to Washington D.C. to make sure your voice is heard.

- Team Velvet Cloud

Remember: apply 'sayNOAB1500' at checkout to save 25%. Offer available to everyone, but Californians we beg you to take action and write your legislature!

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Sure it is their business but now it is looking like the freedom to do business as usual is about to come to an end, with regulation comes whole new aspects of doing business. Nobody has a regulation compliance manager on the payroll because there are no regulations to keep up with.

Listen, do you really think vendors need the advice of a lawyer, opinions from a rocket scientist or a Tarot card reading to understand that *any* Federal regulation of their business will drastically impede the way they do business in the future and maybe even close their doors? If they need to be told that, (and are indeed are "waiting" to be told that) well, they're bigger idiots than I thought.

Is it that hard for them to put just a tiny blurb and some links on their main pages informing all their traffic that the FDA is at it again? Too difficult? Ok, so pass the buck with a CASSA link. That works too.

We keep hearing these huge numbers for cost of product acceptance forms, I'm sure vendors are trying to find out just exactly how much or how little of an impact this is going to make on them and how they are going to scrape that up in two years.

I'm 100% convinced most are waiting for "somebody else" to find these things out for them. Free of charge. In the meantime, it's just business as usual.

I'd love to see some action on the legal front, I'm just not sure what the most effective measures need to be addressed.

Why do you want some legal action? You know that can only happen AFTER the regulations are implemented, right?

 

[Nate760]

More than just Truth, I have my Medical Record which is irrefutable PROOF that Vaping has done immense things for my health. It shows that in 2009 I was diagnosed with borderline COPD with Lung Function at 88%. It also shows that 6 months after I started vaping my lung function was back to 98-100%. That is Undeniable Fact.

Yup, same here. Any ANTZ who wishes to summarily dismiss the health benefits of vaping instead of smoking is more than welcome to compare the films of my 2013 and 2014 chest x-rays. And they're more than welcome to try explaining away the normalization of my blood pressure and resting heart rate, and the increase in lung capacity and blood oxygen level.

 

[Devonmoonshire]

Yup, same here. Any ANTZ who wishes to summarily dismiss the health benefits of vaping instead of smoking is more than welcome to compare the films of my 2013 and 2014 chest x-rays. And they're more than welcome to try explaining away the normalization of my blood pressure and resting heart rate, and the increase in lung capacity and blood oxygen level.

Mine too They Look Good I got some sexy photogenic Lungs Now

 

[Nate760]

Mine too They Look Good I got some sexy photogenic Lungs Now

There are few things more gratifying than being told you look 10 years younger than you did last year, even if it's the inside of your chest cavity they're talking about.

 

[Devonmoonshire]

There are few things more gratifying than being told you look 10 years younger than you did last year, even if it's the inside of your chest cavity they're talking about.

Heck yeah, I actually ran my last PRT faster than I did when I was 25. I AM 40 Years Old Now!!!!!!!!! That is Proof Positive in my Book

 

[Maurice Pudlo]

Every vendor should (and should have years ago), at the least, be encouraging their customers to join and support CASAA, which is the "consumer" vaping organization.

I'm not sure I agree here, let me don my flame suit and continue.

CASAA appears to support tobacco products that the general public strongly believe cause cancer, I have little reason to not agree on this particular point, see here: Smokeless Tobacco

This page on CASAA's own site sings of advertisement for BT, where is the e-liquid (which is smokeless too) on this page?
Smokefree Types

Here Smokefree Health Effects and I quote:

Does smokeless tobacco cause heart disease or stroke? - The risk is probably quite small.

There may be some small risk, though there is no definitive evidence. Most studies of cardiovascular diseaseand smokeless tobacco have found no increased risk. However, because nicotine is a mild stimulant, it might increase the risk of certain cardiovascular outcomes, such as stroke. Many stimulants have been linked to some risk for fatal cardiovascular events. This does not prove that nicotine causes such risk, but it suggests that it is plausible.

The available evidence shows that if there is any risk from smokeless tobacco, it is low, less than a 20% increase (for comparison, smoking is estimated to roughly double this risk, a 100% increase).

In this sort of thing you want to use the lowest possible number to support your case, usually rounding up so as to ensure that you sound genuine. I can assume by using smokless tobacco products that my risk of heart disease or stroke is likely to increase up to 19% but less than 20%. Again we a singing along with BT here, supporting their products, pointing folks in a direction away from supporting our own aims.

On this page Smoking Cessation another demonstration how e-cigarettes are a second order of business for CASAA:

What if I end up using smokeless tobacco or electronic cigarettes but don't quit smoking?

Electronic cigarettes is second, it is clearly not grouped with smokeless tobacco (remember there is no smoke from our e-cigs, unless you burn your cotton wick), and even with all that alphabetically electronic cigarettes would be listed first.

Even the image used to represent electronic cigarettes is a cig-a-like type e-cigarette (a product mainly produced by BT).

CASAA is not equally treating BT products vs. our e-cigarette products. On the following pages are two statements that are somewhat analogous to one another;

From Smoke-free Tobacco FAQS

Are you trying to sell people on using smokeless tobacco? - Instead of smoking, yes; otherwise, no.

We are not encouraging anyone who does not already use nicotine to try it or use it (in any form). Nicotine products cost you money and time, and even smokeless tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine products are probably a little bit bad for your health.

From Electronic Cigarette FAQS

Are e-cigarettes safe?

While anything containing nicotine cannot be called 100% safe, evidence from numerous studies strongly suggests that they are magnitudes safer than tobacco cigarettes.

What is CASAA's involvement in e-cigarette research?

In late 2010, CASAA's board of directors discussed CASAA's mission in relation to the current and future involvement in smokeless and e-cigarette research and studies and concluded that CASAA does not have the funding nor the staff to endorse, supervise and/or fund any ongoing research.

Again with mentioning smokeless first.

I'm sure I could go on and on about the faults I find with CASAA that make me question their loyalty to the Vaping community. I think this next quote about sums it up for what CASAA does for us:

It is unlikely that many people reading this have never tried nicotine

That's a problem, a huge glaring, super nova kind of problem, kinda. Except that CASAA makes us look like we are in fact sleeping with the enemy.

Do I think we have a better alternative, I'm not sure we have time to develop a better alternative to be quite honest. I do think we have stacked our chips far closer to BT than any of us are comfortable to admit. The average Vaper wants to get away from BT, I'm not so sure CASAA or BT thinks that is in the long term plan. At least they aren't going about it that way.

We really are part of a virgin industry, the whole of us are a bit naive as to experiencing just how devastating it can be when big corporations crush/merge with/buy out/remove their adversaries.

I'm not sure if I'm the first to point this stuff out, if so, I do hope we all look a bit closer at whom we are associating with, I do hope we hold these people to an exacting standard that serves our needs. While CASAA claims to be neutral, you can read the About CASAA page here About CASAA I've pointed out small but valid points that are not good for our image vs. that of BT smokeless products.

So why, why is CASAA supporting BT smokeless products? I get harm reduction, I really do, but think for yourself; BT needs our help like a lion needs help eating its prey, so why are we in bed with them?

As for the board of directors, I have serious misgivings about Dr. Carl V. Phillips adding to our credibility, any association with HSUS is not good; Center for Consumer Freedom – 7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS

So there you go, I have my flame suit on, I'm here with as much concern about our future as the rest of you, I just want to know we are able to trust those who we think are on our side.

Maurice

 

[Nate760]

Heck yeah, I actually ran my last PRT faster than I did when I was 25. I AM 40 Years Old Now!!!!!!!!! That is Proof Positive in my Book

Wait, you mean we're both named Nate, we're both from San Diego, AND we're exactly the same age? This is starting to get a bit creepy.

 

[Devonmoonshire]

Wait, you mean we're both named Nate, we're both from San Diego, AND we're exactly the same age? This is starting to get a bit creepy.

LMAO and Don't forget we are BOTH Vapers too LOL

Crazy small world there LOL

 

[Maurice Pudlo]

Listen, do you really think vendors need the advice of a lawyer, opinions from a rocket scientist or a Tarot card reading to understand that *any* Federal regulation of their business will drastically impede the way they do business in the future and maybe even close their doors? If they need to be told that, (and are indeed are "waiting" to be told that) well, they're bigger idiots than I thought.

That is an obvious understatement, I assume most vendors realize that regulation is going to change things, but I do not assume they have the first clue as to what those changes are going to look like or how they are going to deal with them. Each and every business needs to know for a fact what these proposed regulations are going to do to their individual business. If they don't know they can not act. It is a huge risk to make costly adjustments to policy and procedure if it isn't needed or effects the bottom line in a negative way. Each and every business out there that is related to e-cigarettes is going to make a bunch of assumptions, some will do so based on solid information, others will just wing it, a group will likely wait until others have paved the way and hope they follow the right groups lead.

Is it that hard for them to put just a tiny blurb and some links on their main pages informing all their traffic that the FDA is at it again? Too difficult? Ok, so pass the buck with a CASSA link. That works too.

No, it isn't. But what exactly is the right blurb, these are businesses that don't want to go away regardless of their motivation. Why isn't ECF doing a site shutdown and link forwarding to CASAA? Why are you on ECF? There are a zillion things people could do, and very well may do, just do what you can and worry about that.

I'm 100% convinced most are waiting for "somebody else" to find these things out for them. Free of charge. In the meantime, it's just business as usual.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Why do you want some legal action? You know that can only happen AFTER the regulations are implemented, right?

Don't take me for a fool, legal action can take many forms, action against the FDA can include at the very least something to prevent them from publishing anything that could result in less sales of e-cigarette products such as Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes) a case such as this could be used to set the groundwork for future cases. It is often difficult to insert every bit of information into the time available in a single court case, however referencing past cases compresses the space needed to provide the quantity of information needed to win the larger action against them. Every little win, every little fact, every little legal precedent, every bit of case law helps.

This isn't as simple as posting up a link, or a gripe.

Businesses need to stock the war chests, plan a defense or an attack, and execute the plan perfectly.

Or you might as well get used to cig-a-likes.

Maurice

 

[aikanae1]

I'm not going to try and address everything by point, but explain my thoughts on some of these issues since I've had concerns before too. Maybe your reading too much into this.

CASAA's goal is making sure tobacco harm reduction techniques are available to everyone. Not all people can quit smoking with just nicotine alone. I'm one. I've had to toss out all my nasty images of snus and try it over a rough patch. It is very different than what I was lead to believe in the press. Guess what? They lied to us about that stuff too only for a much longer time.

Sometimes our interests mirror BT's and sometimes it doesn't. I have always seen CASAA act independently with the vapers interests as primary. Always.

I'm not a fan of BT. There's a sizable number on ECF who don't feel BT is all that bad. Whatever. You are going to see many differences of opinions about almost everything - except what supports tobacco harm reduction when it comes to legislation. CASAA accepts no industry funding, membership donations only and pays no one.

I'm angry that I've been lied to by self-called "public health agencies" that do get paid. I'm also aware that a lot of these acts and bills have created a situation where government and big tobacco are in bed together. So yea - considering that climate, CASAA's got wings and a halo.

I'm not sure I agree here, let me don my flame suit and continue.

CASAA appears to support tobacco products that the general public strongly believe cause cancer, I have little reason to not agree on this particular point, see here: Smokeless Tobacco

This page on CASAA's own site sings of advertisement for BT, where is the e-liquid (which is smokeless too) on this page?
Smokefree Types

Here Smokefree Health Effects and I quote:


In this sort of thing you want to use the lowest possible number to support your case, usually rounding up so as to ensure that you sound genuine. I can assume by using smokless tobacco products that my risk of heart disease or stroke is likely to increase up to 19% but less than 20%. Again we a singing along with BT here, supporting their products, pointing folks in a direction away from supporting our own aims.

On this page Smoking Cessation another demonstration how e-cigarettes are a second order of business for CASAA:

Electronic cigarettes is second, it is clearly not grouped with smokeless tobacco (remember there is no smoke from our e-cigs, unless you burn your cotton wick), and even with all that alphabetically electronic cigarettes would be listed first.

Even the image used to represent electronic cigarettes is a cig-a-like type e-cigarette (a product mainly produced by BT).

CASAA is not equally treating BT products vs. our e-cigarette products. On the following pages are two statements that are somewhat analogous to one another;

From Smoke-free Tobacco FAQS


From Electronic Cigarette FAQS



Again with mentioning smokeless first.

I'm sure I could go on and on about the faults I find with CASAA that make me question their loyalty to the Vaping community. I think this next quote about sums it up for what CASAA does for us:

That's a problem, a huge glaring, super nova kind of problem, kinda. Except that CASAA makes us look like we are in fact sleeping with the enemy.

Do I think we have a better alternative, I'm not sure we have time to develop a better alternative to be quite honest. I do think we have stacked our chips far closer to BT than any of us are comfortable to admit. The average Vaper wants to get away from BT, I'm not so sure CASAA or BT thinks that is in the long term plan. At least they aren't going about it that way.

We really are part of a virgin industry, the whole of us are a bit naive as to experiencing just how devastating it can be when big corporations crush/merge with/buy out/remove their adversaries.

I'm not sure if I'm the first to point this stuff out, if so, I do hope we all look a bit closer at whom we are associating with, I do hope we hold these people to an exacting standard that serves our needs. While CASAA claims to be neutral, you can read the About CASAA page here About CASAA I've pointed out small but valid points that are not good for our image vs. that of BT smokeless products.

So why, why is CASAA supporting BT smokeless products? I get harm reduction, I really do, but think for yourself; BT needs our help like a lion needs help eating its prey, so why are we in bed with them?

As for the board of directors, I have serious misgivings about Dr. Carl V. Phillips adding to our credibility, any association with HSUS is not good; Center for Consumer Freedom – 7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS

So there you go, I have my flame suit on, I'm here with as much concern about our future as the rest of you, I just want to know we are able to trust those who we think are on our side.

Maurice

 

[Nate760]

That is an obvious understatement, I assume most vendors realize that regulation is going to change things, but I do not assume they have the first clue as to what those changes are going to look like or how they are going to deal with them.

Agreed. A great many local vape shop owners are just as much in need of basic education as are members of the general public. They do not necessarily understand the modus operandi of the FDA, or the role it plays in protecting the tobacco cartel and the smoking cessation cartel. They may not have any idea, reading the proposed regulations through the eyes of a layman with limited business experience, that small businesses like their own are going to be the first ones on the chopping block when this whole exercise starts playing out.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

<snip>

If I were reviewing your post as a media piece on vaping, my alarm bells would go off.

You appear to be very carefully selecting a cherry-picked subset of the evidence in order to support your insinuation that CASAA is too close to BT, because CASAA supports smokeless tobacco.

Two aspects of your post caught my eye after a couple of minutes (i.e. I haven't really gone over it carefully).

First, it seems that you imply that smokeless tobacco is synonymous with big tobacco - ergo, you suggest that CASAA is "too close" to BT. (I believe your point is that smokeless tobacco is a one of "their" = BT products?).

I'm no expert on OTP, but this Wikipedia link came up pretty quickly in my search:

Chewing tobacco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undoubtedly some of these manufacturers are owned by BT. Many, perhaps. But I wonder whether all of them are?

If your point is that the vast majority of the non-combustible OTP manufacturers are owned by BT, this sounds suspiciously like what our opponents say about vaping, viz. that BT owns a significant share of the vaping market (which is true).

As I recall, the above fact is very often cited by health authorities as a justification for supporting myriad anti-vaping regulations. Including, but not limited to taxes and use restrictions. Not to mention their allegation that vaping products are "marketed to chidren" and serve as a "gateway" for minors to tobacco cigarette smoking. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention their point that one should question the cessation value of vaping, precisely because BT has such a large presence in the vaping market.

The fact that you're using the exact same analysis against CASAA doesn't necessarily undercut your larger point about CASAA. It just puts you in the rhetorical company of those folks who are making the above-cited arguments against vaping.

What they are saying is that since the vaping market is owned in signficant part by BT, then vaping should be treated more like cigarette smoking. What you appear to be saying is that since the non-combustible OTP market is owned in signficant part by BT, CASAA should therefore be treated as more like BT, i.e. "too close" to it.

***

Also, I'm also not sure what your point is when giving us the link to an article on the HSUS (Humane Society of the US), other than perhaps some kind of guilt-by-association-by-association (i.e. CASAA is associated with C.V. Phillips, who is associated with HSUS?).

We can trade links. Here's the Wikipedia on the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is your source for the HSUS article: Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

***

After just a couple minutes of thought, my first instinct as someone who has read thousands of scurrilous media pieces on vaping, is that the techniques that I've seen in some of them are similar to what I found in your post.

Instead of providing a balanced and analytical approach that looks at the entire scope of CASAA's activities (and members of ECF are, like you, familiar with the breadth and depth of same), you pick out incendiary details and provide misleading unflattering innuendo and inferences by attempting to tie CASAA to BT in a manner that I can only characterize as unfair and unbalanced.

I'd have to spend more time with your post.

But after five minutes, all I can say is that it looks like what I'd call a classic hit job.

 

[aikanae1]

One of the issues with a very young industry is that the first generation of vape shops are hobbyist's who opened a business. The industry hasn't gotten much past that stage. I guess there was a second wave of some that opened up with their eyes on the profit margin and without much knowledge or respect for anything else about vaping. Those don't hang around long.

Seasoned business? Trade orgainizatons? Those are all very, very new.

I know there's a sizeable number of local B&M's who had a "wait and see" attitude. They felt they could weather whatever laws, taxes and restrictions placed on them. Take it as it comes. I think that's the spirit this industry demanded since 2009. Why would anyone want to open shop in this industry that could have it's wings clipped at any time?

There is no capital financing, payment processors don't want to deal with "high risk" ecigs, no organized distribution, learning curve dealing with chinese manufacturing and holidays, local legislation that's like a moving target, on and on. I think the growth has been pretty amazing in spite of it all.

Q: What makes you think going to court is a possibility?

From my understanding, deeming IS the legal framework. The only thing that could alter that might be Congress (with a new act) or maybe HHS (doubtful). But this is "foundational".

I kinda worry that some people might not be accepting the reality that this is it and it's real. Not that I want panic, but now is no time to hold back putting thoughts down on paper to congress or taking other action. Court isn't much help right now.

That is an obvious understatement, I assume most vendors realize that regulation is going to change things, but I do not assume they have the first clue as to what those changes are going to look like or how they are going to deal with them. Each and every business needs to know for a fact what these proposed regulations are going to do to their individual business. If they don't know they can not act. It is a huge risk to make costly adjustments to policy and procedure if it isn't needed or effects the bottom line in a negative way. Each and every business out there that is related to e-cigarettes is going to make a bunch of assumptions, some will do so based on solid information, others will just wing it, a group will likely wait until others have paved the way and hope they follow the right groups lead.


No, it isn't. But what exactly is the right blurb, these are businesses that don't want to go away regardless of their motivation. Why isn't ECF doing a site shutdown and link forwarding to CASAA? Why are you on ECF? There are a zillion things people could do, and very well may do, just do what you can and worry about that.


I'm sorry you feel that way.


Don't take me for a fool, legal action can take many forms, action against the FDA can include at the very least something to prevent them from publishing anything that could result in less sales of e-cigarette products such as Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes) a case such as this could be used to set the groundwork for future cases. It is often difficult to insert every bit of information into the time available in a single court case, however referencing past cases compresses the space needed to provide the quantity of information needed to win the larger action against them. Every little win, every little fact, every little legal precedent, every bit of case law helps.

This isn't as simple as posting up a link, or a gripe.

Businesses need to stock the war chests, plan a defense or an attack, and execute the plan perfectly.

Or you might as well get used to cig-a-likes.

Maurice

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Maurice,


- Perhaps the reason why you're not seeing e-cigs on that page is because it appears as though CASAA doesn't consider e-cigs as a tobacco product (you know, unlike the FDA)...


- CASAA's 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."

CASAA Mission Statement


- The 1st in their list of smoking alternatives is e-cigs..

Smoking Alternatives


- CASAA was founded in 2009 -- you know, back when the vaping industry & community were still pretty tiny.. I'm not sure of exact numbers, but it's been estimated that it's now a $2 billion industry with 1 million e-cig users in the US.. Back in 2009, I'd put that number at a very small percentage.. Even at 10%, that's a $200 million industry with 100,000 e-cig users.. And I would wager it was probably a lot less than that... Compare that to the NRT industry, for example, back in 2009...


Anyway, what CASAA has been focusing on for quite a while now is, in fact, vaping.. Just check out their track record

Why? The sheer numbers, as well as vaping's effectiveness as an alternative to smoking... And those numbers are still rapidly increasing...


This discussion is off-topic for this thread, which is about the vendors..

Perhaps start a new thread elsewhere? Maybe at the CASAA forum?

 

[Devonmoonshire]

This is not a Political Discussion. It is a thread asking where the Vendors are in fighting this.

I am guilty of off topic as well talking about my lungs and for that I apologize. However there are some vendors that are being vocal and some who are not.

Unless they come out and specifically state why they are or are not being vocal about it and plastering it all over their websites. I guess all of this is conjecture.

Keep in mind another fact, Vendors cannot come in here and defend themselves they are pretty much imprisoned in their own vendor threads by the rules of ECF.

So that is where this stands right now