Cancer research organizations that are NOT against e-cigs?

[Xeyk]

So some guy I found on the interwebs is trying to start a company that claims it will give 10% of all sales to the American Lung Association in the form of donations from their sales of e-liquid. I pointed out this was ...-backwards seeing as how the ALA is completely against e-cigarettes, and is actively trying to stop them. I also pointed out there are other cancer research places that he could donate to that are less harmful to e-cigarettes.

Upon posting, I realized.. oh man.. I don't know a single cancer research place that isn't against e-cigarettes.

I want this dude's company to work, but it seems like if a company is researching cancer, they are against e-cigs. Does anyone know of a company that isn't? Where could this guy donate to?

 

[Ohms Lawbreaker]

That's pretty funny right there. I'm usually the guy who just jokes around in here, but I can't top that. Bravo.

Okay, seriously: Run away from that businessman. He hasn't a clue. People are diving into this game now, it's the new gold rush, many jumping off cliffs. No, I know of no cancer orgs that would get anywhere near e-cigs. And any company or organization with "American" in it's title is full of it, pulling our strings with false patriotism. Predict that guy's business will fail if he is that ill informed.

 

[Elizabeth Baldwin]

He should donate to an organization that funds research on ecigs not cancer or maybe an organization against smoking but not ecigs... You'd have to research and see.

 

[mrbeefy0]

vaping militia, brother.

 

[Xeyk]

Real helpful post. Am I wrong that the ALA is against e-cigs? What is the point of your post?

 

[Rickajho]

Whatever that company is... at the very least that sounds a little odd. I mean, anyone can donate to the American Lung Association if they really want to. But do I want 10% of my purchase proceeds going there? HELL NO!!!

For "those who know" that site has built in a feature that is guaranteed to ruin his business. For "those who don't know" the company owner might think that people getting a warm fuzzy donating to the American Lung Association will give some people an incentive to shop there. And that's just wrong and borderline unethical too. (Or maybe just .... stupid. That's always a possibility. Doesn't excuse it though.)

Personally, I like the sites that say they support CASAA. If any money does go to CASAA at least we know what they are doing for us with that money.

 

[Xeyk]

And that's just wrong and borderline unethical.

And I completely agree with you. Worst part of it all is that out of 150-some posts in the topic, I am only one out of three people to point this out. Everyone else seems to be hopping right on board because of that warm fuzzy feeling crap.

If anyone even sees my post, I will point out CASAA first and foremost. Seeing as how my view is that the best way to kick cancer in the ... is to get tobacco smoking replaced with something leagues less harmful. Though, I am sure my post won't be seen, because it's on a certain website where people can "le downtove" any content they don't like. Shouldn't have even bothered.

 

[Rickajho]

Maybe we can find you some links to post there to viewpoints expressed by the American Lung Association about e-cigs. Heck, if you look in the political and media sub forums I'm sure there are at least a dozen threads there about the American Lung Association since the first of the year.

I don't know who is more stupid: The owner who is doing it or all those lemmings going over the cliff buying into it.

 

[DC2]

You should call and speak to the owner directly.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Presumably the owner would like smokers to become vapers. So a reputable public health organization that endorses vaping as THR might be just as good as the ALA (if the ALA was reasonable, that is).

What about the American ...'n of Public Health Physicians?

 

[LDS714]

From a different perspective...

We all hear the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

But when it comes to politics, isn't it more like, "the more you grease the wheels, the more smoothly they roll (over the other guy)?"

Basically I see this as an attempt to give the ALA a vested interest. It won't match BT and BP contributions for a long time (if ever) but still....

 

[DC2]

From a different perspective...

We all hear the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease."

But when it comes to politics, isn't it more like, "the more you grease the wheels, the more smoothly they roll (over the other guy)?"

Basically I see this as an attempt to give the ALA a vested interest. It won't match BT and BP contributions for a long time (if ever) but still....

I wonder if you have seen this yet...

This link results in a search of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant archive...
Robert Wood Johnson - Grant Archive

That search shows around $9.6 million in grants to the American Lung Association.
It includes some grants to others, like the American Cancer Society, but I just added up the ALA grants.

These are just the grants for the Smokeless States program, although the ALA has received many other RWJF grants.

If you're not familiar with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation...
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

 

[ScottP]

He could donate the money to CASAA.