I was on the website today and it's no joke that they literally want smokers to not have the ability to adopt. ash = evil. i have no idea how anyone could be a part of that.
We need to form our own ASH
- Thread starter Janetda
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Oh, I'm perfectly aware that they want to keep smokers away from children, it goes further than just adoption. ASH will help you with child custody cases if your ex smokes. They want to keep people away from their own children. It's discussing.
As for the name, well...
I'm just as concerned with the disinformation about all smokeless tobacco products as I am with e-cigs. Frankly, I'm concerned with the false and exaggerated information spewed over SHS and now THS. These groups can say anything with impunity because they are the "good" guys. As they say, who will protect us from the protectors?
As for the name, well...
I'm just as concerned with the disinformation about all smokeless tobacco products as I am with e-cigs. Frankly, I'm concerned with the false and exaggerated information spewed over SHS and now THS. These groups can say anything with impunity because they are the "good" guys. As they say, who will protect us from the protectors?
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The title of this thread is awful, although John Banzhaf would be honored that somebody is actually paying attention to him and thinks so highly of ASH that they'd want to emulate it.
So this will be my only post on this thread.
Please note that for more than a decade, the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA coalition (which is controlled by CTFK's Matt Myers) hasn't collaborated (and probably hasn't communicated) with John Banzhaf (who is ASH). Myers has long disliked Banzhaf.
The idea of "let's brainstorm potential ways to sue groups we don't like, and lets urge CASAA to file/fund/sustain the litigation" is a lousy litigation strategy, and would likely doom CASAA, which has no money and has far more important and pressing priorities (e.g. NY and other state legislation, FDA regulation, and organization building).
But there may be litigation strategies and opportunities that CASAA (and other individuals/organizations) can pursue or collaborate on. But don't put the cart before the horse.
Yolanda is correct that the Internal Revenue Code allows 501(c)3 organizations to spend up to 20% of their expenditures (over a 3 year period). ASH, ALA, ACS, AHA clearly spend less than 20% of their expenditures on lobbying.
I think CTFK is also a 501(c)3. Although CTFK almost certainly has spent more that 20% of their expenditures (from 2005 to 2008, and perhaps now) on lobbying, they have very good accountants and management practices to make their books say their lobbying expenditures are within legal limits (as much of their lobbying activities are likely accounted for as public education, trainings, public service, etc,).
Regardless, if one wanted to challenge an organization's 501(c)3 status, you'd need to file a complaint with the IRS (not by suing in civil court), and hope the IRS conducted an audit/investigation.
That's what happened to the Sierra Club several decades ago (which is why the Sierra Club is now a 501(c)4) and some religious groups have also lost their charitable status due to excessive political and/or lobbying activities.
So this will be my only post on this thread.
Please note that for more than a decade, the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA coalition (which is controlled by CTFK's Matt Myers) hasn't collaborated (and probably hasn't communicated) with John Banzhaf (who is ASH). Myers has long disliked Banzhaf.
The idea of "let's brainstorm potential ways to sue groups we don't like, and lets urge CASAA to file/fund/sustain the litigation" is a lousy litigation strategy, and would likely doom CASAA, which has no money and has far more important and pressing priorities (e.g. NY and other state legislation, FDA regulation, and organization building).
But there may be litigation strategies and opportunities that CASAA (and other individuals/organizations) can pursue or collaborate on. But don't put the cart before the horse.
Yolanda is correct that the Internal Revenue Code allows 501(c)3 organizations to spend up to 20% of their expenditures (over a 3 year period). ASH, ALA, ACS, AHA clearly spend less than 20% of their expenditures on lobbying.
I think CTFK is also a 501(c)3. Although CTFK almost certainly has spent more that 20% of their expenditures (from 2005 to 2008, and perhaps now) on lobbying, they have very good accountants and management practices to make their books say their lobbying expenditures are within legal limits (as much of their lobbying activities are likely accounted for as public education, trainings, public service, etc,).
Regardless, if one wanted to challenge an organization's 501(c)3 status, you'd need to file a complaint with the IRS (not by suing in civil court), and hope the IRS conducted an audit/investigation.
That's what happened to the Sierra Club several decades ago (which is why the Sierra Club is now a 501(c)4) and some religious groups have also lost their charitable status due to excessive political and/or lobbying activities.
While I very much appreciate all that you have done for the vaping community, I can't help but feel that you are not exactly my friend. On several occasions you've responded to me and others as if we were idiots. Which I suppose is typical of an anti-tobacco advocate. I really don't give a rat's ... if you don't like the name of the thread.
If fellow anti-tobacco advocates such as you, Dr. Siegel, et al, can't keep the false accusations from being disseminated, then someone has too. I don't know of any other way to get these folks to stop spreading lies about smokeless tobacco and shs other than to sue them. Do you?
While this all may be a big chess board to you and all the other anti's out there, we actually have to live with the consequences of your actions - not you. The policies that you people put in place effect our quality of life, and not in a good way. The ALA/ACS can write to state legislatures, product tv ads, 'educate' doctors with complete lies and no one calls them on it. What do you propose we do?
What we are brainstorming here are just possible actions. Most likely will go nowhere because we don't have the money to really do anything. What has gone on is not right and you know it's not right. You also know that you helped things get to this point. So I'm asking as nicely as I can (really, I'm showing great restraint here), back the f... off. Let me have my little thread.
If fellow anti-tobacco advocates such as you, Dr. Siegel, et al, can't keep the false accusations from being disseminated, then someone has too. I don't know of any other way to get these folks to stop spreading lies about smokeless tobacco and shs other than to sue them. Do you?
While this all may be a big chess board to you and all the other anti's out there, we actually have to live with the consequences of your actions - not you. The policies that you people put in place effect our quality of life, and not in a good way. The ALA/ACS can write to state legislatures, product tv ads, 'educate' doctors with complete lies and no one calls them on it. What do you propose we do?
What we are brainstorming here are just possible actions. Most likely will go nowhere because we don't have the money to really do anything. What has gone on is not right and you know it's not right. You also know that you helped things get to this point. So I'm asking as nicely as I can (really, I'm showing great restraint here), back the f... off. Let me have my little thread.
Bill is 100% correct in CASAA's ability to be involed in any civil action against said organiztions. We have very little money and resources, yet have on our agenda, besides continued structural growth/organization, the state bans and the Federal lawsuit. A bit of scientific research would be nice too. Thanks to Kristin, CASAA has started a petition thats main purpose is to expose the untruths as stated by the cosortium of three letter acronyms. CASAA is in no way like ASH, nor will it ever be like ASH. OUR stance will be based on truth.
Oh for crying out loud. I never said we should tell lies like ASH and I only asked if it was something CASAA would be interested in. What I'm talking about is a legal action group - like ASH.
Hi Janet,
I'm really sorry for the reaction - I guess that ASH is a real sore point with a lot of old-time members and advocates.
Really, ASH is one loudmouth, self-important, publicity-seeking, ambulance-chasing lawyer. It's not even a real legal action group, IMO. It's the John Banzhaf soapbox.
So, you just chose a bad example to use and it raised hackles.
You are right, though, we do need a good legal group on our side. (As lucky as we are to have her, poor Yvilla is being stretched thin and pulled outside her area of law expertise! lol) Please know that CASAA would be willing to assist in any way we can, but we don't have the funds to hire one just yet. We are more of a grassroots group, but will try to fill in where we can.
I'm really sorry for the reaction - I guess that ASH is a real sore point with a lot of old-time members and advocates.
Really, ASH is one loudmouth, self-important, publicity-seeking, ambulance-chasing lawyer. It's not even a real legal action group, IMO. It's the John Banzhaf soapbox.
So, you just chose a bad example to use and it raised hackles.
You are right, though, we do need a good legal group on our side. (As lucky as we are to have her, poor Yvilla is being stretched thin and pulled outside her area of law expertise! lol) Please know that CASAA would be willing to assist in any way we can, but we don't have the funds to hire one just yet. We are more of a grassroots group, but will try to fill in where we can.
My apologies for not showing up on this thread earlier -
Many of CASAA's Board members and advisors have weighed in and made most of our arguments. I have a meeting Monday with our CPA, early this week we'll have our Skype meeting and hopefully we can announce better answers for everyone then.
Initially, I have to say that I do agree with Bill, Terri, Yolanda and Kristin -
Finding battles to fight and fronts needing CASAA's support isn't difficult. Selecting exactly when and where to surgically strike will be the test of our collective judgement, use of resources and member base.
We spent weeks debating semantics and acronyms in the early days of CASAA. Establishing non-profit status, CC processing and a solid and responsive Board of Directors has been an arduous and painstaking process. It's taken us months to get where we are and I don't envy anyone the efforts in ramping up a new movement.
I would recommend that we focus this thread on focusing these issues into CASAA directives - not starting a new group.
Webby
Many of CASAA's Board members and advisors have weighed in and made most of our arguments. I have a meeting Monday with our CPA, early this week we'll have our Skype meeting and hopefully we can announce better answers for everyone then.
Initially, I have to say that I do agree with Bill, Terri, Yolanda and Kristin -
Finding battles to fight and fronts needing CASAA's support isn't difficult. Selecting exactly when and where to surgically strike will be the test of our collective judgement, use of resources and member base.
We spent weeks debating semantics and acronyms in the early days of CASAA. Establishing non-profit status, CC processing and a solid and responsive Board of Directors has been an arduous and painstaking process. It's taken us months to get where we are and I don't envy anyone the efforts in ramping up a new movement.
I would recommend that we focus this thread on focusing these issues into CASAA directives - not starting a new group.
Webby
Thank you Webby and Kristin. It's not like I've got an attorney on the line and we're ready to file anything. These are just ideas we're kicking around. But I do think the time has come.
Last edited:
The time has most definitely come to take a solid position and stick with it.
NO - we do not sanction e-cigs being used by anyone under the age of 18. NO - we do not consider them a smoking cessation product, but we concede that some have used them for that purpose. YES - we consider e-cigs a safer alternative to smoking tobacco. Etc.
Like a '10 commandments' of sorts, for the want of a better analogy.
We need to take a position and stick with it. Let the antis fire their weapons, we will just take cover and then move forward again
- Status
Similar threads
