CASAA - Organization

[Mister]

The arguments for the wording of the mission statement are going in circles.

Yup, they sure are. Perhaps a vote should be used to resolve it?

I again present the following mission statement:

The mission of the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is to preserve the consumer's right to choose alternatives to smoking.

This makes the mission to "preserve a right." To me that seems very limiting. It implies staying where we are vs. exploring new territory. It is suggestive of CASAA having no business existing at all if the courts rule that this is not a right. It suggests that CASAA has no business getting involved in setting standards for suppliers, for publishing and supporting research into new areas, for anything except defensive legal battles.

Of course the organization's goals can expand on this mission statement. And we might say things like "the best way to preserve this right is to educate the public." But at heart this version of the mission statement still seems defensive and limiting to me.

More effective? Well, seems that a a couple thousand people here have gone 0 nic. I'd say that's pretty effective, but to quantify that to any statistically acceptable number is imposssible.

I don't think that using the word "effective" implies any obligation to quantify it. And as you say it is pretty easy to see that it is true even though we don't have a number beside it. A dictionary definition of "effective" is "adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result." It seems easy enough to demonstrate that e-cigs and snus are effective as alternatives to smoking for a substantial number of people. Just point to a couple of web sites.

 

[Kate51]

I don't think that using the word "effective" implies any obligation to quantify it. And as you say it is pretty easy to see that it is true even though we don't have a number beside it. A dictionary definition of "effective" is "adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result." It seems easy enough to demonstrate that e-cigs and snus are effective as alternatives to smoking for a substantial number of people. Just point to a couple of web sites.

Should be no problem with that then. Concur!

 

[kinabaloo]

It's always better to use positive terms. We don't want to appear defensive and closed minded. Besides, there may be little to preserve in terms of legal rights soon.

'Dedicated to researching safer and more effective alternatives/replacements ...', or something similar, avoids making any current claims.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

You guys are killing me. In simple terms, what is CASAA hoping to accomplish? Hell, make a list. Then take that list, condense it into 20 or so words, and boom! Mission statement. It doesn't need to be flowery, it needs to be clear, pointed, and effective. Keep it simple. All the nuances can be explained in your goals and other documentation.

 

[Territoo]

You guys are killing me. In simple terms, what is CASAA hoping to accomplish? Hell, make a list. Then take that list, condense it into 20 or so words, and boom! Mission statement. It doesn't need to be flowery, it needs to be clear, pointed, and effective. Keep it simple. All the nuances can be explained in your goals and other documentation.

Amen!

 

[kinabaloo]

You guys are killing me. In simple terms, what is CASAA hoping to accomplish? Hell, make a list. Then take that list, condense it into 20 or so words, and boom! Mission statement. It doesn't need to be flowery, it needs to be clear, pointed, and effective. Keep it simple. All the nuances can be explained in your goals and other documentation.

Ok, if it's so simple, where's your offering?? Easy to jibe.

 

[DVap]

ps: also nominate DVap. I'm thinking here of an extra category - science - being somewhat different from medical; someone who can dissect experimental procedure and separate good science from bad.

When the FDA come out with a new report, it needs someone with an excellent understanding of scientic method to see any flaws so that atimely response can be made.

Thanks kin, though I have to pass.

Currently, on a hazard scale of things I might objectively want to inhale, I'd rank it off the top of my head like this:

Air: 1 (and I'm quite fond of inhaling it, I do it all the time)
vapor: 1,000
tobacco smoke: 1,000,000

The fact that the FDA wants to focus on the difference between vapor and air, while giving tobacco smoke a pass is infuriating. I simply lack the patience to pound my head against the impenetrable brick-wall of big-money politics.

 

[Thulium]

Here's a variant on the latest suggestions:

CASAA's mission is to support and defend consumer freedom(1) to choose and use safer and/or(2) more effective smoking replacements.

1. It seems that it would be harder to make a case against consumer freedom than it would be against consumer rights.

2. Would it be too awkward to use and/or to avoid the impression that safer and more effective can't be separated?

I like this, but rather than get bogged down with "and/or", it could simply be "or", as in:

CASAA's mission is to support and defend consumer freedom to choose safer or more effective smoking replacements.

 

[webtaxman]

If a competent attorney advised against using "Safe" Safer," and/or "Effective," would anyone still want to keep those words in the mission statement? I guarantee that is exactly what will happen once Webby sends it for review.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

Ok, if it's so simple, where's your offering?? Easy to jibe.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ion-charter-administration-19.html#post592454

OK, I'm butting out.

 

[dragonpuff]

I stepped out of this debate a long time ago because i can only argue about semantics for so long.

I don't see anything wrong with the mission statement as it stands, and i believe continuing this debate is putting off other important business.

On that note, i have a question: Once the mission statement is submitted, can we officially change it later if we need to?

If we can, then why don't we just stick to what we have now for the time being?

Otherwise, i honestly don't see us all coming to an agreement on this for a long time. As they say, you can't please everybody, and i don't think its possible for us to come up with a statement that absolutely everyone can agree on because we simply have too many people involved for that to happen.

Don't get me wrong, from what i've seen everyone's made some very good points here. I just think we need to get this done, that's all.

 

[kinabaloo]

Thanks kin, though I have to pass.

Currently, on a hazard scale of things I might objectively want to inhale, I'd rank it off the top of my head like this:

Air: 1 (and I'm quite fond of inhaling it, I do it all the time)
vapor: 1,000
tobacco smoke: 1,000,000

The fact that the FDA wants to focus on the difference between vapor and air, while giving tobacco smoke a pass is infuriating. I simply lack the patience to pound my head against the impenetrable brick-wall of big-money politics.

Do think it over.

Though I completely understand your feeling. I'm thinking you can leave the politics aside and just look at the science. I think the FDA, or whoever, will be more careful next time. Not publshing the data for the control might be easy to spot but there could be more subtle things to spot next time.

Am wondering just where on earth you could be with air so pure?

 

[kinabaloo]

The crusader's version:

"To empower nicotine users to make an informed choice on their method of consumption."

Too long, crusader.

How about:

To enable informed choices about nicotine use.

Half as long, and easier on the brain cells

It's nice to see a different take rather than rewordings.

Bit sleepy here, what do others think? Do we need to declare intention to be legally/politically active as a pressure group?

 

[DVap]

Do think it over.

Though I completely understand your feeling. I'm thinking you can leave the politics aside and just look at the science. I think the FDA, or whoever, will be more careful next time. Not publshing the data for the control might be easy to spot but there could be more subtle things to spot next time.

Am wondering just where on earth you could be with air so pure?

It was an off the-cuff-scale. Probably more like 1:100:1,000,000.

This probably isn't the thread for it, but we'll need to looking out for the following stunts: Inappropriate conditions, worst-case scenarios (cherry picking), misrepresentation of significance of results, double standards (I won't even take the FDA seriously unless they fire up a Marlboro Red and subject it to the same testing as any e-liquid, inappropriate appeal to authority...remember that jackass in the labcoat in that propaganda video the FDA put out?)

I'll be happy to critique any study that come along and I'll say what I think was done right and what I think was done wrong, but no thanks to any "official" role.

 

[Mister]

If a competent attorney advised against using "Safe" Safer," and/or "Effective," would anyone still want to keep those words in the mission statement? I guarantee that is exactly what will happen once Webby sends it for review.

I understand that we must not use the word "safer." We may believe that e-cigs are safer, and we may have enough evidence pointing to that to be betting our lives on it, but that still falls short of absolutely knowing and being able to prove it.

I'd like to know what you think the problem is with "effective." Taking it at face value as defined in a dictionary I don't see a problem with using it and with asserting it to be true of any smoking alternative which would be of interest to CASAA.

 

[Thulium]

I honestly do not see any reason why we cannot use "safe" or "safer" in our mission statement. If we do not mention any specific product, it is impossible to interpret as making any sort of medical claim.

Safe-Wheels Homepage uses the word "safe" in their mission statement:

MISSION STATEMENT

Our mission is “to improve safe, reliable and cost-effective transportation in a non-western-, development- or relief setting through providing quality knowledge transfer and practical experience on a not-for-profit basis. We assist aid- and development organisations to improve the quality of their fleet operations, spend less money on vehicles and save the lives of (inter)national travelling staff and their fellow road-users".

 

[Darkest]

You guys are killing me. In simple terms, what is CASAA hoping to accomplish? Hell, make a list. Then take that list, condense it into 20 or so words, and boom! Mission statement. It doesn't need to be flowery, it needs to be clear, pointed, and effective. Keep it simple. All the nuances can be explained in your goals and other documentation.

Exactly. Are we there yet?

 

[kinabaloo]

"Inform choices on nicotine use."

 

[kinabaloo]

If not already nominated, I add kristin as a nomination, together with yvilla.

Also, before it comes to voting can we ask each candidate to say in 300 words their positions on certain things so that we can make informed choices.

 

[Thulium]

If not already nominated, I add kristin as a nomination, together with yvilla.

Also, before it comes to voting can we ask each candidate to say in 300 words their positions on certain things so that we can make informed choices.

I think you might be getting a little too far ahead. At this point we haven't decided what exactly the board positions will entail and not all the nominees may accept their nomination or be qualified.

And regarding people's positions on issues, it might be interesting to know but it hopefully will not make a large difference since I think major policy stances for the organization will be made by a collective vote. That said, what are the questions you would like answered?