We need to form our own ASH

[Janetda]

I wanted to move this to a new thread as it seemed we were starting to high jack the sue the fda thread.

I think it's time that we started our own ASH-type organization. Just as the tobacco companies were forced to tell the truth about smoking, I think ALA, ACA, etc., should be forced to tell the truth about smokeless tobacco and e-cigs. It seems the only way to get the truth anymore is through legal means. We know that for the most part, we can't sue the federal government, but we can get damned close with these other organizations.

Vocalek made some very good points here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...against-fda-health-canada-14.html#post1311647. And I think there are plenty of others.

Is this something that we can do? Would CASAA be interested? Could there be financial help from tobacco companies, e-cig companies, etc.

Discuss!

 

[StormFinch]

You know, I think we just might have them. Check this out;

Prohibition on Political and Legislative Activities

An important issue is the federal tax code's rule against 501(c)(3) organizations engaging in political and legislative activities. Because the proscribed activities violate the tax code (and may result in the revocation of the organization's tax-exempt status, the imposition of an excise tax, and liability for back taxes), you must understand how 501(c)(3) defines each type of activity. See the section on Prohibitions on Political and Legislative Activities in this guide for more information.

Found that here; Nonprofit Organization | Citizen Media Law Project

Am I correct in the assumption that the ALA at the very least is breaking the tax code by having their hand in all these bans?

 

[Janetda]

I'd have to look it up, but I'm guessing that they are 501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

 

[StormFinch]

According to their last 990, which they so obligingly posted on their website, they are a 501(c)(3).

http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/financials/form-990s/form-990-fye-6-30-09.PDF

 

[maxx]

BTW...I happened to check out that 990 last week. There is a listing amongst contributors for Pfizer....for over 1.5 million dollars. Pfizer makes the Nicotrol line of NRT products.

No surprise there....

 

[Janetda]

Well, there you go. It's a good start. Now we need some money and a lawyer. I'm not sure how to start this sort of thing.

 

[Vocalek]

Yvilla would know this. A 501(c)(3) is allowed to do some lobbying. There is a percentage limit of (I believe) 20% of their funds, and it is averaged across 3 years.

I am curious whether a 501(c)(3) is required to live up to its mission statement. I don't see how the ALA is fullfilling the part about "Saving live by improving lung health" with its work to ban the product that has made it possible for me to sleep at night. No longer kept awake listening to my own wheezing. How will my lungs improve if I am forced to go back to smoking? What about the lung health of >40 million US smokers who stand a much improved chance of better lung health if they switch to anything that works to help them to not inhale smoke?

 

[Janetda]

I sent a pm to YVilla earlier today regarding her thoughts on all of this. We'll wait for her reply.

I know this would take tons of money. It shouldn't have to take millions to get 'respectable' people to tell the truth. This is just so frustrating. How can they tell smokers to continue to smoke when they know there are better products out there!

 

[hoogie76]

I may be behind the curve a bit but have you guys seen this site: The Truth About Ecigs

I particularly like the 'completed e-cig studies' section..

Has some great general info..

 

[Janetda]

Thanks Hoogie, I believe that's a vendor site, but they do have an impressive collection of information.

Well, YVilla hasn't returned my pm, so perhaps this idea is considered part of the lunatic fringe. I know lawsuits cost tons of money, I just feel that we should do something. I know that often lawsuits are the only way to get attention. oh well, maybe some one will have a better idea.

 

[StormFinch]

Sorry I was absent for the most part yesterday... really wasn't stringing words together well.

Janet, I PMed Yvilla not long after I posted the info about 501s. She said it was doubtful that we could pop them for it since a portion of a 501(c)(3)s budget can go toward lobbying. I still wonder about this line;

"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." - Lobbying

especially due to the fact that we have people that can testify that the ALA lobbyist stated that she helped write the Illinois bill, but I trust Yvilla's judgement.

Needless to say, we can still look at the history of lies and mis-direction these groups have been spewing. Speaking of which, Yvilla was probably busy yesterday helping to set up the petition that Kristin is now spreading around. Be sure to check it out if you haven't already. A Petition for the AAP, ACS, AHA, American Legacy Foundation, ALA, AMA, ASH, FDA, Public Citizen and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to change their policy and support the sale and use of ecigarettes as a reduced harm option for committed adult smoker

 

[yvilla]

Well, YVilla hasn't returned my pm, so perhaps this idea is considered part of the lunatic fringe. I know lawsuits cost tons of money, I just feel that we should do something. I know that often lawsuits are the only way to get attention. oh well, maybe some one will have a better idea.

I'm so sorry Janetda! I had answered Stormfinch's similar PM, and when I saw your earlier post I mixed things up and thought I had already answered yours. It's no excuse, but I got a lot of PMs about the NY campaign, and missed yours in the crush.

Storm specifically asked whether a 501(c)3 is allowed to attempt to influence legislation, and I answered that it can, SO LONG AS such lobbying does NOT constitute more than the allowable percentage of its expenditures, or if the alternate test is chosen, a "substantial part" of its activities as a whole (See, http://www.npaction.org/article/articleview/100/1/248).

But your question is more general, and on whether there might be a valid lawsuit against the so-called "Health" organizations, perhaps for the misinformation they have so avidly been feeding us for years about the health risks of smokeless tobacco products, and now ecigs. I confess that the very generality of that question makes it harder for me to answer - as my expertise is squarely in the area of criminal law, that I practiced in for 25 years, and I have never practiced in the area of civil litigation.

So, I am extremely good at reading and interpreting statutes (as criminal law is all about statutes, both substantive and procedural), and that translates perfectly well into the world of regulatory statutes like state bans, the federal regulations on charities, and the FDCA, but civil litigation is another world altogether.

That said, my less than expert thought on this matter is that a cause of action, perhaps sounding in tort for misrepresentation resulting in harm to the public, seems like something that could and should be looked into, by someone who does have the required experience and knowledge in civil actions.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I agree that we need our own group to oppose ash and it's like. Every evil special interest group needs a good one to counter it. That is the only way to get any objectivity.
BUT, isn't that what both CASAA and ECA are?

 

[Janetda]

Thanks for responding YVilla. I know you're inbox must be a very busy place these days.

I know nothing about the law. But I do know that I would have tried smokeless tobacco many years ago if I hadn't been told that it was just as bad or worse than cigarettes. There must be people with verifiable COPD and other illnesses that could have been helped if there wasn't so much disinformation out there. I genuinely think these organizations are hurting people, and should answer for that.

So, now my question is, would CASAA be interested in pursuing something like this? If not, how can does anyone know how to go about finding a lawyer who would want to take on something like this? Do we just start writing letters to lawyers and hope someone takes it on? Where do you start?

 

[yvilla]

That is still a very difficult question to answer! As for whether CASAA would be interested, well I am just one individual board member and would have to raise your question with the rest.

But I do know that actually "pursuing" this - if by that you mean actually filing a lawsuit - would be wholly beyond our means and resources at this point. As far as I know, I'm the only in-house attorney, and I don't have the means or, as noted above, the expertise to carry out such litigation.

But if you mean interested in the sense of checking for lawyers who may be potentially interested in a case of this nature, that's a question I can raise with the other board members. So give me some time to get some responses, and get back to you.

But I have to say, such a suit would be an enormous undertaking, fraught with complexity and barriers even if deemed "possible" in terms of stating a cause of action, and I'm unfortunately quite pessimistic about the chances of finding an attorney or legal action organization that would take it on.

 

[Janetda]

I understand that a lawsuit may be too much, I don't know. Let me ask you this then, is there anyway to pressure each state's AG to force them to prove their claims with supporting data?

 

[River]

If it's like ash does that mean we just make stuff up? and keep orphans from being adopted? and are not happy until we shove an unrealistic agenda down the entire worlds throat?

This could be our first press release.

Vaping proven to make you immortal!!!

 

[Janetda]

Too funny!

 

[spaky]

We could call it VAPE: Voices Against Prohibition of Ecigs

 

[StormFinch]

We could call it VAPE: Voices Against Prohibition of Ecigs

Ooooo... I LIKE that! Very cool and creative spaky!