States Slash Funding for Tobacco Prevention Programs

Reader Comments
Back to article

While states are spending LESS on tobacco control, they're spending MORE to subsidize film productions with smoking, which are proven to recruit hundreds of thousands of teens to smoke.
A recent report from University of California, San Francisco, found that states recently began spending an estimated $830 million on films with smoking — well above spending on tobacco control — including $500 million on kid-rated films with smoking.
Based on SAMHSA data and more than a decade of peer-reviewed research reports, UCSF estimates that more than a million current smokers aged 12-17 have been recruited by their exposure to smoking on screen. Of these, about 400,000 will ultimately die from tobacco-related diseases.
The UCSF report is available at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8nc8422j.

Jonathan Polansky of CA 4:57PM December 10, 2009

Read the whole article. Show me the money trail. I'd love to know?

Jim of VA 12:28PM December 10, 2009

As a smoker I believe that the country owes us a huge THANK YOU...we keep the state budgets almost whole, we fund SCHIP, we die off sooner thereby leaving more money in SS Medicare/Medicaid for the non-smokers. Ultimately it is everyone's moral and patriotic duty to smoke.

Mike Arb of MO 11:54AM December 10, 2009

The truth is the states have never wanted people to stop smoking, the whole, sorded, mess is nothing bet a ruse to increase revenue. In the beginning states were investing enough of this money into programs for them to actually work, then they started, publicly, announcing that they were loosing revenue so they started taking more of the funds out of the tobacco prevention programs and putting the money in the general fund for the legislatures to spend/waste to suit themselves. Politicians hate designated funds. They look upon that as if their ability to spend your money in a responsible, ethical or even sensible manner were being questioned. Don't ever forget, 'The primary purpose of a one-term politician is to become a two-term politician, this has nothing to do with constituents, and everything to do with large supporters and contributors. And that is why the young are still starting to smoke, and the older are still dying from the results of it.

Thomas Shockley of MD 9:58AM December 10, 2009

I just want to be clear that I am NOT accusing anyone of reducing Tobacco Prevention programs because they benefit from the fact that people use tobacco.
This does appear to be a potential conflict of interest to me but with today's economy budgets are being cut in many areas; there's no doubt that Tobacco Prevention programs would also be reduced.

kccj of MO 9:46AM December 10, 2009

Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here? The money from tobacco increases as money for smoking cessation declines. They claim they want people to stop smoking while making money off the ones who do. Does it sound surprising that they would reduce expenditures that could cause their funds to eventually go do? I know smokers will cause more later when they become sick but politians are well adapt to pass their problem on down the road so others can deal with them; just look at our Congress.

kccj of MO 9:14AM December 10, 2009

just another indication of how morally corrupt politicians are and how lobbies control them. I'm waiting for the day when the rest of the electorate gets it and decides to do something about it. It should be a real event!

rick frost of NY 8:51AM December 10, 2009

start smoking, according to this article, and one third of them will die a premature death from smoking.
So, are they God now? Can they see each person's future and know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that one-third of the people that start smoking today will die a premature death? This is on the same level as Obama saying his policies have "created or saved" X-amount of jobs. No one can prove or disprove what will happen in a person's life, or even many people's lives, or even if one-third of the people who start smoking today would've lived a full life, irregardless of their personal habits.
What's happening now is that the States are finally realizing their own smoking-cessation programs are killing their golden geese, and lowering their tax revenues, so now they are not so intent on making sure all of us quit smoking, but rather that those who do smoke don't stop paying their discriminatory and unfair taxes.
Hypocrite--thy name is politician.
I refuse to quit smoking because the government, especially the Federal government, thinks I should. They will reap this karma they've sowed. Wait and see.

M.L. Bushman of MT 8:16AM December 10, 2009

kkkalifornia Is DONE Son and also amerikkka Is DONE Son !

Ken Macone of NV 8:16AM December 10, 2009

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." The National Cancer Institute states "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states "An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable." Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

harleyrider1978 of ME 7:03AM December 10, 2009