Why should I care about CASAA's latest Call to Action?

[niterider]

I'm sure many of you received an email from CASAA regarding Maryland's Tax Increase on Smokeless tobacco but does not include e-cigs. CASAA wants me to help oppose this. Question is, why? I'm not trying to be a jerk but is there really a reason I should care about this? Does this really warrent a "Call to Action" from the e-cig community? Doesn't this ultimately put them in a negative light and give them less creditability in it's effort to keep vaping legal? I wish there was an option to opt out of these kinds of CTA's and just keep the related e-cig CTA's coming. But for now I've unsubscribed. Like I said, I'm not trying to be jerk and these are honest questions. I apologize if I've offended anyone.

CASAA: Call to Action! Maryland Smokeless Tobacco Tax Increase -- HB683
[h=3][/h]

 

[NancyR]

Because the FDA is trying to class e-cigs in with smokeless tobacco, and if they manage to do that, then yes it will effect vapers. Not to mention CASAA is for all forms of harm reduction from smoking, which smokeless tobacco is part of.

 

[EddardinWinter]

CASAA Stands for Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association. They are not only representatives of vapers, they also represent snus users and other smokeless products. I am not following you on the "Doesn't this ultimately put them in a negative light and give them less creditability in it's effort to keep vaping legal?" point. How does it do any of that? The idea is that CASAA defends all smoke free alternatives, not just vaping. If they pretended to be something else, it could hurt them, but it is part of their mission.

Have you been to the website? It is right there on the top of the front page what they are doing for smokeless tobacco. If you find receiving an email to be too great an imposition, then I suppose you have made the correct choice. They will continue to notify you if any of the activities they defend are threatened with legislation if you do not.

 

[niterider]

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding why ecigs(I hate that word) are grouped with smokeless Tobacco since e-cigs don't have any tobacco. I would think the e-cig community would want to distance themselves from tobacco products.

 

[DC2]

CASAA is asking for your support because CASAA supports all forms of tobacco harm reduction, not just electronic cigarettes.
Just because they're asking for your support doesn't mean you have to, if you feel that strongly about it.

Regardless, I don't understand why you would unsubscribe over one email.
Unless maybe it offended you or something?

 

[DC2]

I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding why ecigs(I hate that word) are grouped with smokeless Tobacco since e-cigs don't have any tobacco. I would think the e-cig community would want to distance themselves from tobacco products.

The fact is, electronic cigarettes are soon going to be regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product.
So there isn't any way we are going to be able to distance ourselves from tobacco products.

 

[kristin]

Smokeless tobacco is a reduced harm product. E-cigarettes are a reduced harm product. Reduced harm products should not be subject to "sin taxes" because then people will be discouraged from switching from cigarettes to reduced harm products.

We need to get people to see the difference between harmful products and low-risk products or else they won't see e-cigarettes as any different than smoking. If we let the governments tax other reduced harm products, how credible will we look when we try to argue that e-cigarettes are a reduced harm product and shouldn't have exorbitant taxes?

As NancyR pointed out, CASAA stands for Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association. We are not the Consumer Advocates for E-cigarettes. We began on this forum but quickly saw how closely tied e-cigarettes are with tobacco harm reduction, which includes other smoke-free tobacco products. A lot of smokers can't or won't use e-cigarettes or need something like snus to help them finally quit. Wouldn't we be pretty hypocritical to tell them to switch to vaping or just keep smoking? We'd be just as bad as the ANTZ. Wouldn't it be unfair to not also support vapers who also need products such as snus or other ST? E-cigarette users need to support smokeless tobacco users and vice versa because both products rely on public acceptance of tobacco harm reduction policies - which include not taxing them to death. Our smokeless-using members answer Calls To Action for e-cigarette laws, so our e-cigarette members should return that support and help keep low risk, smoke-free tobacco products available, affordable and effective.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[NancyR]

Not to mention if you are using any e-juice that has nicotine in it, that nicotine comes from tobacco. So like it or not you are still using a tobacco product, just not the tobacco itself.

 

[niterider]

CASAA Stands for Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association. They are not only representatives of vapers, they also represent snus users and other smokeless products. I am not following you on the "Doesn't this ultimately put them in a negative light and give them less creditability in it's effort to keep vaping legal?" point. How does it do any of that? The idea is that CASAA defends all smoke free alternatives, not just vaping.

I had thought CASAA was initially created for the vaping community. So the point I was trying to make is that CASAA's efforts to keep vaping legal can be undermined by it's own admission that it's a tobacco product or at least grouping it with other tobacco products. So while the FDA is trying to class e-cigs as smokeless Tobacco, CASAA is obliging to that notion by recognizing it such while fighting it at the same time.

 

[NancyR]

I had thought CASAA was initially created for the vaping community. So the point I was trying to make is that CASAA's efforts to keep vaping legal can be undermined by it's own admission that it's a tobacco product or at least grouping it with other tobacco products. So while the FDA is trying to class e-cigs as smokeless Tobacco, CASAA is obliging to that notion by recognizing it such while fighting it at the same time.

Would you rather we treat it like a medical device in which would allow the FDA to completely pull it from the market?

 

[EddardinWinter]

So by defending another reduced harm product, they make vaping cast in a negative light, or like a tobacco product? The FDA cannot state that e-cigarettes are tobacco products because CASAA defends a tobacco product and a non-tobacco product. I do not see that CASAA's recognition of snus users right to use a reduced-harm product damages vaping.

BTW, being associated with snus (whose relative safety is better documented than vaping) would only help vaping, niterider. The use of snus has quite a bit of long term research backing its safe use.

 

[PhreakySTS9]

I had thought CASAA was initially created for the vaping community. So the point I was trying to make is that CASAA's efforts to keep vaping legal can be undermined by it's own admission that it's a tobacco product or at least grouping it with other tobacco products. So while the FDA is trying to class e-cigs as smokeless Tobacco, CASAA is obliging to that notion by recognizing it such while fighting it at the same time.

No, they're fighting for ALL Smoke-free Alternatives. Which, if you would have read the post by the board member two posts before you, you would have seen. Their drive is keeping people off cigarettes. If you switch to snus, it is a MUCH safer habit and can help you get away from smoking. The same can be said for vaping. Except, as my Westerosi brother above me said, snus has MUCH more research proving it's a low risk product, which being associated with vaping is a big plus.

 

[kristin]

I had thought CASAA was initially created for the vaping community. So the point I was trying to make is that CASAA's efforts to keep vaping legal can be undermined by it's own admission that it's a tobacco product or at least grouping it with other tobacco products. So while the FDA is trying to class e-cigs as smokeless Tobacco, CASAA is obliging to that notion by recognizing it such while fighting it at the same time.

The FDA defines a tobacco product as "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product. This includes, among other products, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco." Since the vast majority of e-liquid nicotine is derived from tobacco, that makes them a tobacco product. CASAA is not obliging the FDA, as the FDA will define e-cigarettes containing nicotine derived from tobacco as a "tobacco product" regardless of what CASAA does or says. They have already made it clear they intend to regulate e-cigarettes as novel tobacco products (not "smokeless tobacco." ) The point is that the time for denying e-cigarettes are tobacco products is long past. They WILL be regulated as tobacco products and CASAA has to do everything it can to stop unfair or illogical regulation of ALL tobacco harm reduction products. The fact that there are low-risk tobacco products already in existence, with plenty of supporting research, actually HELPS our fight for e-cigarettes.

(I've explained above why CASAA became advocates for all tobacco harm reduction products and not just e-cigarettes.)

 

[DC2]

CASAA is obliging to that notion by recognizing it such while fighting it at the same time.

It really doesn't matter what CASAA does in this regard, because the FDA IS going to regulate electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product.
It's not something that is open for debate, or can be influenced in any way.

The use of snus has quite a bit of long term research backing its safe use.

That's a very good point.

One of our strongest arguments for the relative safety of vaping comes from snus use and research.
The 30-year history of snus use in Sweden is about the only proof that exists that long-term use of nicotine is not harmful.

 

[niterider]

Thanks all. It really did clear up some questions I had about the initiative.

 

[kristin]

If it wasn't for snus, my husband would be still smoking even using his e-cigarette. We had him up to 36 mg and he still felt "something missing." I estimate that about 25% of e-cigarette users are part of of the "something missing" group (if not more since many just quit vaping and go back to smoking.) It really sucks that it is very expensive and difficult to get quality snus for him in the US and any tax increases hurt us a LOT because we are by no means wealthy. So, I am extremely grateful that CASAA also fights for smoke-free tobacco users' right to access to affordable, reduced harm products other than e-cigarettes!

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Smokeless tobacco is a reduced harm product. E-cigarettes are a reduced harm product. Reduced harm products should not be subject to "sin taxes" because then people will be discouraged from switching from cigarettes to reduced harm products.

Rather than taxed, perhaps reduced harm alternatives ought to be subsidized in the name of improving the overall health of our nation.

 

[kristin]

Rather than taxed, perhaps reduced harm alternatives ought to be subsidized in the name of improving the overall health of our nation.

From your lips to God's ear!

 

[Absintheur]

First they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Personally I am against any tax that isn't applied equally to all people....

 

[EddardinWinter]

Personally I am against any tax that isn't applied equally to all people....

I could only like it once...so I liked it once.