Open Letters

The Letters

Letters published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are offered here for broader comment and discussion.

 

Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Blog roll

More Opinion
A Fine Point

Recent Posts

Archives

It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work

As a chemical dependency therapist, a cardiac rehab specialist and a smoking cessation specialist, I am appalled that settlement funding is being reduced for prevention and cessation programs ("State Cuts Imperil No-Smoking Efforts," Sept. 28). What is the logic behind this?

Tobacco causes or exacerbates pulmonary disease, heart disease and diabetes (just to name a few) and increases health-care costs, including hospitalizations. But the sad part is that we know all this and they still chose to cut funds. Why?

When I think of all the people who have attended the smoking cessation groups and how so many of them benefited from them, I can't help but wonder why this doesn't matter to the decision makers. When someone in a group quits tobacco and says to the facilitator how his life has been changed, why doesn't this matter?

When prevention programs reach youth and make an impact on a young person's life, why doesn't this matter? When someone with heart disease quits smoking and increases her survival rate, why doesn't this matter? When a group member announced that she can walk up a hill since quitting, why doesn't this matter?

I ask someone why doesn't any of this matter? What is the logic?

CATHY FERRERO
Cheswick

 

Posted Oct 02 2009, 05:19 PM by Susan Mannella

Comments

corzich wrote re: It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work
on Fri, Oct 2 2009 10:03 PM

Maybe the logic is, since tobacco is a legal product (for the moment), extirpating it shouldn't b the state's #1 priority, esp. in a budget crunch.

kevin morris wrote re: It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work
on Sat, Oct 3 2009 7:22 AM

How many voters won't vote for their rep if smoking cessation and prevention measures are reduced? That's why it "doesn't matter." If you reduce funding for libraries or the opera or the parks these things have constituencies that will respond loudly. Smoking cessation's only constituency is those who right now want to quit; prevention has none.

Don't get me wrong, I agree totally with funding anti smoking efforts.    

swaybar wrote re: It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work
on Sat, Oct 3 2009 12:46 PM

After all these years is there anyone who is not brain dead that doesn't know smoking is a killer?  I quit after 43 years without benefit of any anti smoking programs.  A heart attack 20 years ago was all I needed.

DoggyDad wrote re: It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work
on Sun, Oct 4 2009 4:45 AM

Uh, miss?  Has no one ever told you it's futile to flog a dead horse?  That's what you are doing.  While your choice of occupation suggests you believe in the position you champion, you are mistaken in assuming the government shares it.

The governmental interest in tobacco is M-O-N-E-Y.  If the primary interest were health, tobacco would have long ago been banned.  This has not, and will not, happen as long as government makes more money off the Marlboro Man than Phillip Morris (aka Altria) does.  Taxes are levied on products people are loathe to forfeit for that very reason; it makes the revenue stream more predictable & reliable.  And THAT is what "our leaders" are all about.  They are every bit as greedy as the evil private sector crowd, but far less willing to provide any ROI whatsoever.  Wake up & smell the coffee, Sis.......................

It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work | US-Winston Online Club wrote It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work | US-Winston Online Club
on Tue, Oct 6 2009 5:48 AM

Pingback from  It should matter to officials that anti-smoking efforts work | US-Winston Online Club