I'm just not interested in hype or PR. My background in grantwriting taught me the importance of specificity. Certain "proofs" are required. If you're writing a federal grant to Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for a health care facility for morbidly obese children, they aren't the least bit "snowed" by wordy emotional submissions....they want deliverables: facts and figures.)
The ONLY positive third-party stuff I've seen appears to be on the topic of schizophrenics and
vaping vs smoking. I'd LOVE to see someone study what happens to the level of second-hand-smoke when you give
vaping kits to every smoker in a very low-income apartment complex, maybe we could get a fire safety grant. But generally, who puts money into an area where they have no interest?
I just want links to hard science independent studies that I can print out and send to my legislators. I have absolutely no intention of writing to Rush Limbaugh about ecigs.
CASAA's link to "Printable Materials" is darned good, and I've been cherry-picking from there, and ALSO was suggesting that for the California case we call "dibs" on things so different materials are coming from different people.
BUT...I really think that the mindset of the legislators in question should be addressed IN ADDITION to the factual materials, because they need a
positive reason to vote the other way when the issue in question is not an outright ban, but only a disincentive like a tax or a not-in-smoking-areas issue or a no-internet-sales issue. And positive reasons DO vary between parties and states. A reason like "freedom" that might play very well in a conservative state, unfortunately, sounds too much like the NRA in states like California, where "NRA" is a 4-letter word.(*) On the other hand, it might be entertaining to ask "Progressive" legislators to give us a "green" rebate for not creating carbon dioxide, and then reluctantly settle for having them do nothing (as opposed to banning or taxing us.)
My point is that
we need ALL of us in order to talk effectively to talk to ALL of the decision-makers.
Speaking of grants, what is the grantwriting activity at CASAA or related orgs to fund independent studies on the safety of
vaping, flavorings, silica wick, etc.?
All of the people who OUGHT to want to give grants are against us. All of the people who MIGHT want to give us grants would taint us by their association with us. If you can think of good targets for grant-writing, PLEASE email
board@casaa.org. Make your Subject line a grabber! (No, I'm not on the board. I just have a cousin who used to be amazing at grant-writing for a school for juvenile delinquents.)
(*) My NRA instructor was a 4-foot 11-inch Japanese grandmother married to a champion target shooter who specialized in destroying small orange dots in black circles on paper. She also taught gun safety to the police, and lost a former student to some other officers who had not had the same safety trainer.
I myself sometimes defend myself from small orange dots. And I'm a lifetime liberal Democrat.
