Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leading Anti-Smoking States Cut Tobacco Prevention Programs
CNSNews.com ^ | 2/24/2003 | Robert B. Bluey

Posted on 02/24/2003 7:41:33 AM PST by yoe

A handful of states that once led the nation in their tobacco prevention programs have taken an ax to those efforts in order to trim deficits and balance their budgets.

Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota were often praised for their use of tobacco settlement money. But thanks to deep cuts in tobacco control budgets, several anti-smoking groups claim they are now abandoning earlier commitments made when settlements with the tobacco industry were reached in 1998.

A newly elected Republican governor leads each of those states, but even Democrat-controlled California has cut its tobacco prevention efforts to pay for a huge budget shortfall. In each case, the states are turning a blind eye to the promises they made to fund youth prevention programs, anti-smoking groups said.

In the short-term, diverting money from tobacco control to the general fund might help governors and legislators balance budgets, which is required by law in some states. That approach, however, has long-term risks and a greater cost, said Carlos Alvarez, executive director of the Massachusetts American Lung Association.

"We used to have a nationally recognized, highly successful program, and it has all gone down the toilet," Alvarez said. "As far as public health is concerned, I would say we have a serious crisis in the making by the cuts in tobacco prevention funding."

Most of the cuts came during Republican Gov. Jane Swift's administration, but current Gov. Mitt Romney, also a Republican, recently proposed $10 million in cuts to the state's tobacco control efforts.

"This is the fourth in the series of cuts made in the last 12 months, which will completely eliminate a program that has saved thousands of lives and millions of dollars, and been heralded by public health leaders and the Bush administration as one of the best in the nation," said William V. Corr, executive vice president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Massachusetts used to top the campaign's annual report on tobacco settlement spending. This year, however, it dropped to 38th because of the funding cuts. A state health commissioner did not return a call seeking comment, but the department had previously issued a list of accomplishments, including a 27 percent drop in teen smoking during the past six years.

At the time the report was released in January, Minnesota (ranked second) and Maryland (ranked fourth) were still considered model examples of states that properly used the money they received from the settlement.

But in the past few weeks, governors in both those states have said they need to slash their tobacco prevention programs to make up for budget deficits.

In Maryland, Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich is trying to close a $1.8 billion shortfall. The state currently meets recommendations set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on tobacco prevention funding. Under Ehrlich's budget, the state would lose that designation, as funding would be cut in half to $15.2 million.

Steve Peregoy, executive director of the American Lung Association of Maryland, said the figures are somewhat misleading since the state had usually budgeted for $30 million but never spent more than $20 million for tobacco control. Although Peregoy is concerned, he hopes the cuts will only be temporary.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: junquescience; legal; michaeldobbs; pufflist; smoking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
If you smoke or not, infringement on your rights affects all Americans. Like the Federal Reserve, the War on Drugs, the smoking police are all a part of a huge government scam...for money and votes.
1 posted on 02/24/2003 7:41:33 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe
"But thanks to deep cuts in tobacco control budgets, several anti-smoking groups claim they are now abandoning earlier commitments made when settlements with the tobacco industry were reached in 1998"

However, this approach to getting in one's pocket only works if people actually believe that the interest of the government is in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people.

If you look at how many states have actually placed funds received from the tobacco settlements into tobacco education, and health programs, as opposed to other uses, you will clearly see that this is not the case.

2 posted on 02/24/2003 7:57:35 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
It just seems that somewhere, the light has come on about killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Yes, smoking kills. But, it brings in so much money! In politics, the choice is clear. And anyway, what do the politicians care anyway? Estate taxes take money from people who die, so why do they care about people who are going to die because they smoke? They still get taxes!
3 posted on 02/24/2003 7:58:26 AM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; SheLion
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
4 posted on 02/24/2003 8:55:50 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
A handful of states that once led the nation in their tobacco prevention programs have taken an ax to those efforts in order to trim deficits and balance their budgets.

I suspect only partially true, they also want to make sure they have a new bunch of smokers coming on line, even the anti's needs that in order to keep the money flowing.

Reported last week in Ottawa, teen smoking increase by 10%.

5 posted on 02/24/2003 9:56:44 AM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
Thanks for the ping!!!
6 posted on 02/24/2003 10:47:58 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: *all
"We used to have a nationally recognized, highly successful program, and it has all gone down the toilet," Alvarez said. "As far as public health is concerned, I would say we have a serious crisis in the making by the cuts in tobacco prevention funding."

Public health, my patoot! How about leaning on the AIDS program, and stop worrying so much about a legal product.

If it's so bad for us, why hasn't it been banned long ago? The Tobacco Settlement Money is just lining the pockets of the DemocRATS and the State Coffers. Ban it or spend money on something else. I can't stand these hypocrites.

7 posted on 02/24/2003 10:51:27 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The tobacco settlements were never about fighting smoking, they were about funding the DNC through lawyers fees and about funding feelgood social engineering boondoggles at the state level.

I despise smokenazis.

P. S. Nice to see you here today, kiddo. Hope you're doing okay. Been thinking of you. ;-D
8 posted on 02/24/2003 10:53:47 AM PST by Judith Anne (The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Nice to see you here today, kiddo. Hope you're doing okay. Been thinking of you. ;-D

Thanks, Judith Anne! Great seeing you too. Just taking one day at a time.......

This tobacco issue really T's me off, though!

9 posted on 02/24/2003 10:57:26 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yoe
I agree with you, it's all a scam to collect more money.

If smoking was the great danger these idiots claim, the government would not be encouraging tobacco use by giving taxpayer money to tobacco growers.
10 posted on 02/24/2003 11:18:45 AM PST by radioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Most people don't understand that the next congress can undo what was done by the last congress. They think that once money is allocated for any specific purpose, it's that way forever.

People who don't understand how gub'mint works shouldn't be able to vote.

11 posted on 02/24/2003 11:20:16 AM PST by metesky (My retirement fund is holding steady @ $.05 a can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Most people don't understand that the next congress can undo what was done by the last congress.

Sounds great to ME! When can we make a clean sweep?!

12 posted on 02/24/2003 11:22:44 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
"Most people don't understand that the next congress can undo what was done by the last congress."

Most people don't understand that the current congress can undo 8 years of X42. That's why the rats are having fits. Slowly but surely things will tilt back towards normalcy.
13 posted on 02/24/2003 11:27:51 AM PST by ozone1 (Partnership for a liberal -free Maine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ozone1
Slowly but surely things will tilt back towards normalcy.

I, for one, can't wait, ozone! This horrible waste of money has gotten way out of hand. Using the MSA money for everything BUT what it was intended for. Nothing like using the cigarette taxes smokers pay to really stick it to them! :(

14 posted on 02/24/2003 11:30:22 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
You mean dedicating it for smokers?

Not race car drivers or free lunches or to subsidize the liberal non profits?
15 posted on 02/24/2003 11:34:35 AM PST by ozone1 (Partnership for a liberal -free Maine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Great Dane
Where do they get these statistics? From the teenage perps?

Or from the smoking-Nazi perps:

"Aha! A 27% drop in smoking, this proves we need to keep funding our sinecure! It's been so successful!

"Aha! A 10% increase in teen smoking. This proves we need to keep funding our sinecure. More work needs to be done!

but the department had previously issued a list of accomplishments, including a 27 percent drop in teen smoking during the past six years.

Reported last week in Ottawa, teen smoking increase by 10%.

16 posted on 02/24/2003 1:20:51 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
"Aha! A 10% increase in teen smoking. This proves we need to keep funding our sinecure. More work needs to be done!

This is just too funny, the 27% decrease was occuring before the ANTI's got total control of the media, the 10% increase has occured after the fact, proving that high taxes does not deter teens from smoking.
By the way, the info came straight from the lying horses mouth........ our not so esteemed medical officer DR Cushman.

17 posted on 02/24/2003 4:35:46 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Great Dane
Aha! A 10% increase in teen smoking. This proves we need to keep funding our sinecure. More work needs to be done!

This is just too funny, the 27% decrease was occuring before the ANTI's got total control of the media, the 10% increase has occured after the fact, proving that high taxes does not deter teens from smoking. By the way, the info came straight from the lying horses mouth........ our not so esteemed medical officer DR Cushman.

Well that's still not stopping them from blaming TODAY'S increase in teen smoking on smuggling and tax decreases that occured 10 YEARS AGO.

Abstract From Canadian Journal of Public Health 2003 Jan-Feb;94(1):31-5

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12583668&dopt=Abstract

The early 1990s cigarette price decrease and trends in youth smoking in Ontario.

Waller BJ, Cohen JE, Ferrence R, Bull S, Adlaf EM.

Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. bronwen_waller@camh.net

BACKGROUND: Youth are especially vulnerable to fluctuations in cigarette price, and both the smuggling increase during the early 1990s and the 1994 tax decrease made purchasing easier for youth. The purpose of this study is to examine the relation between these price decreases, and trends in smoking prevalence and amount smoked among Ontario youth. METHODS: Data from the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey were analyzed for trend using: 1) polynomial regression, and 2) discontinuity regression with an "event time" of 1993 to capture effects of both pre-tax cut smuggling and the tax cut. RESULTS: Overall, smoking prevalence decreased from 1977 to 1993, jumped upward at this time, and decreased after 1993. Among daily smokers, mean number of cigarettes smoked daily showed an increase followed by a decrease over the 24 years, and a negative quadratic trend. Trends for subgroups are also reported. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the early 1990s cigarette price decrease may have played a role in increasing youth smoking in Ontario.

PMID: 12583668 [PubMed - in process]

18 posted on 02/24/2003 5:50:22 PM PST by qam1 (Free Upstate New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Yes they are still blaming the decrease in taxes from years ago, guess they are having a hard time coming up with new excuses.

Wrote the Canadian Cancer society and asked them for a list of the 4.000 chemicals in cigarettes........ response, they didn't have a list, I then asked for acceptable measures and what those measures were of the 20 or so worst toxins, guess what, they didn't have that either, they suggested I contact the health department for the info...... isn't that a hoot. :-}

19 posted on 02/24/2003 8:24:57 PM PST by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Great Dane
Yes they are still blaming the decrease in taxes from years ago, guess they are having a hard time coming up with new excuses.

Well the Antis are repetitive SOBs, Since they don't have facts on their side they are forced to use the ole' tell a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it routine.

The only thing new they come up with is new dieases** to pin on smokers and to keep uping the death toll from SHS. We should get a pool going here on the puff list on when the antis claim of deaths due to SHS reaches 100,000 per year.

Wrote the Canadian Cancer society and asked them for a list of the 4.000 chemicals in cigarettes........ response, they didn't have a list, I then asked for acceptable measures and what those measures were of the 20 or so worst toxins, guess what, they didn't have that either, they suggested I contact the health department for the info...... isn't that a hoot. :-}

Typical.

The Anti-smoking Nazis just throw out made up numbers as a scare tactic and when their numbers are challanged they can't answer. Unfortunately the Liberal Media just takes their numbers and reports them without question.

If you really want to get their goat, Ask them to produce just ONE death certificate out of the tens of thousands of people that they claim supposably die from SHS showing the cause of death was second hand smoke.

** Speaking of dieases they try and pin on smokers I found this little diddy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12590790&dopt=Abstract

Abstract from Int J STD AIDS 2003 Jan;14(1):30-6

Predictors of seropositivity to herpes simplex virus type 2 in women.

Evans BA, Kell PD, Bond RA, MacRae KD, Slomka MJ, Brown DW.

Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital, Hammersmith, London W6 8RP, UK.

Five hundred and twenty consecutive women newly attending a genitourinary medicine clinic who participated in a study of sexual behaviour were also tested for type-specific antibody to herpes simplex virus type 2; 135 (26%) were seropositive, of whom only 29 (21.5%) had had clinical evidence of genital herpes. Seropositive women were much more likely to have a past history of genital herpes (odds ratio [OR] 173). They were also more likely to be black non-UK born (OR 14), aged 30 years or over (OR 6), to have had 6-20 sexual partners (OR 3-4), especially from abroad (OR 12), to be unemployed (OR 6) or blue collar workers (OR 4), to have smoked cigarettes (OR 2) and to have practised peno-anal penetration (OR 5). Disease predictors included a past history of pelvic inflammatory disease (OR 63) and bacterial vaginosis (OR 3). Unexpected predictors were only one sexual partner (OR 5) and no non-regular partners (OR 5). Commencing intercourse before 16 years of age showed a protective effect (OR 0.2) and so did use of oral contraception (OR 0.5). Our findings show that infection with HSV-2 is associated with a wider range of morbidity and also emphasize the role of male sexual partner selection in the transmission of infection.

PMID: 12590790 [PubMed - in process]

So even though smoking and herpes has a Odds Ratio of only 2 which means it's irrelevant still expect the next big anti campaign to try to make us appear like second class citizens by linking herpes and smoking.

I can just picture the campaign now.

Smoking A cigarette may Cause Herpes.

Don't sleep with a smoker, You will probably get Herpes.

Quit Smoking now or people won't see a smoker but someone with Herpes

Smokers cost society $100 Billion a year for Herpes medication.

20 posted on 02/24/2003 9:16:54 PM PST by qam1 (Free Upstate New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson