Subscribe
Categories
- Active (3)
- Alabama (4)
- Alachua County (2)
- Albuquerque (1)
- Alex Clark (1)
- Alexandria (1)
- All posts (217)
- American Cancer Society (1)
- Amesbury (1)
- ANPRM (2)
- Appleton (2)
- Arizona (2)
- Arkansas (1)
- Arlington Heights (1)
- Australia (1)
- AVA News (1)
- batteries (1)
- Beltrami County (2)
- Boston (1)
- Bridgeport Connecticut (2)
- California (5)
- Call to Action (3)
- Calls To Action (8)
- Carlsbad (1)
- CASAA Guidance (4)
- CASAA Newsletter (4)
- CASAA Survey (1)
- CDC (1)
- Champaign (2)
- Cheshire (1)
- Chris Christie (1)
- Cincinnati (2)
- Cole-Bishop (2)
- Colorado (4)
- Columbia (1)
- community (2)
- Connecticut (6)
- consumers (2)
- Copenhagen (1)
- CTA (5)
- Decatur (4)
- deeming (1)
- deeming regulations (1)
- demographics (1)
- Des Plaines (1)
- dual-use (1)
- Duluth (2)
- e cigarettes (199)
- e-cigarette (3)
- e-cigarette research (1)
- ecig (2)
- Eden Prairie (3)
- Elk Grove Village (1)
- Epidemic (1)
- Erie County (2)
- FAQs (42)
- FDA (9)
- FDA deeming (4)
- FDA-CTA-current (2)
- FED-CTA-current (2)
- flagstaff (1)
- flavor ban (6)
- flavors (4)
- Florida (3)
- Foxboro (1)
- great american smokeout (1)
- Harm Reduction (2)
- Hawaii (2)
- health (2)
- HR 1136 (2)
- HR1136 (1)
- Idaho (1)
- IL-CTA-current (1)
- Illinois (13)
- Indiana (4)
- indoor use ban (1)
- Indoor Vaping Ban (2)
- Iowa (1)
- iqos (2)
- Jennifer Berger-Coleman (1)
- Kansas (1)
- Kentucky (5)
- Lakewood (1)
- Lancaster County (1)
- legal action (1)
- Legal Actions (1)
- LGBTQ (1)
- Licensing (2)
- Licensing Cap (1)
- Lindenhurst (1)
- Local Alert (7)
- Louisiana (1)
- lung study (1)
- lungs (1)
- Mankato (1)
- Maryland (2)
- Massachsetts (1)
- Massachusetts (3)
- Mental Health (1)
- Meriden (1)
- Michigan (1)
- Minnesota (17)
- Miscellaneous Health Impact Studies (E-Cigarette) (1)
- Mississippi (1)
- Missouri (1)
- MN-CTA-current (2)
- modified risk (3)
- Montana (2)
- MRTP (2)
- MS-CTA-current (1)
- Nebraska (2)
- Needham (1)
- New Hampshire (4)
- New Jersey (4)
- New Mexico (7)
- New York (11)
- New York City (2)
- News (86)
- news-all (57)
- newsletter (2)
- Nicopure (1)
- nicotine (4)
- NM-CTA-current (1)
- noCTA (1)
- NY-CTA-current (3)
- NYC (1)
- Ohio (8)
- Oklahoma (3)
- Onondaga County (1)
- Oregon (1)
- Park Ridge (2)
- Pennsylvania (2)
- Philadelphia (1)
- Plymouth (1)
- PMI (1)
- PMTA (1)
- pneumonia (1)
- policy (1)
- Policy analysis (THR) (1)
- Pope County (1)
- Price Floor (2)
- R2B (1)
- Research (1)
- resources (38)
- Rhode Island (2)
- Ross Township (1)
- Salisbury (1)
- Scarsdale (1)
- Scotland (1)
- Scott Gottlieb (1)
- Smokeless Tobacco (82)
- Smoking Cessation (2)
- Smoking/nicotine addiction (38)
- snus (1)
- South Carolina (3)
- Spain (1)
- Starkville (1)
- study (5)
- Sub ohm vaporizer (1)
- Suffolk County (1)
- Swedish Match (1)
- T21 (1)
- tax (1)
- Tennessee (3)
- testimonials (1)
- testimony (1)
- Texas (3)
- THR (1)
- TMM products (23)
- Tobacco 21 (7)
- tobacco tax (1)
- Tool Box (1)
- TPSAC (4)
- TPSACX (1)
- travel (1)
- TSA (1)
- Twin Falls (1)
- UK (1)
- Uncategorized (12)
- Utah (1)
- Utah. Massachusetts (1)
- vape ban (1)
- Vape Shop Ban (1)
- Vaping (83)
- Vaping News (84)
- vapor (1)
- Vermont (3)
- Virginia (5)
- Wallingford (1)
- Waseca (1)
- Washington (3)
- west virginia (1)
- WI (1)
- Wisconsin (8)
- Woodridge (1)
- Wyoming (1)
- Youngstown (1)
- youth (1)
- Youth Tobacco Survey (1)
-
Recent posts
Traffic
Pages
- Last 24 hours: 0
- Last 7 days: 0
- Last 30 days: 0
- Online now: 0
Category Archives: policy
CASAA Tobacco 21 policy statement: “Including low-risk alternatives in T21 laws is unwise, misleading”
Graphic from the Tobacco 21 web site, which falsely claims that vapor products are designed and advertised to be an addictive “gateway” for youth to using tobacco, therefore, they only support T21 laws that include vapor products. Proposals to raise … Continue reading
Posted in All posts, CASAA Guidance, e cigarettes, News, news-all, policy, Smokeless Tobacco, T21, Tobacco 21, Vaping, Vaping News
Comments Off on CASAA Tobacco 21 policy statement: “Including low-risk alternatives in T21 laws is unwise, misleading”