Though Arizona consistently earns high marks for its smoke-free air, the state's ratings for coverage of smokers trying to quit slid to an F in the American Lung Association's 2010 report card.... Read more»
Tessa Muggeridge/Cronkite News Service
Wayne Tormala, bureau chief of the Bureau of Tobacco and Chronic Disease at the Arizona Department of Health Services, says the CDC's recommendations are considered the 'gold standard,' but most states can't achieve them.
113239111111I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!
We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.
Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:
Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:
TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.
Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.
We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.
We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.
Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.
Keep in mind:
TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:
Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.
Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.
Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.
What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.
We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.
We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.
Bottom line, don't be a jerk.
2 comments on this story
Give the American Lung Association an “F”. The ALA spent $55.8 M in 2008, the latest year available. They spent $6.9 M on salaries and management related expenses. They spent $17.8 M on fund raising. http://lungusa.org/about-us/financials/statements/annual-report-fy-2008.pdf See page 10
They spent only $7.8 of the $55.8 M on research. (The annual state-by-state survey of anti-smoking efforts counts as “research”.)
Zonies, give the American Lung Association an “F”!
The American Lung Association is handing out “F’s” right and left this year to cash strapped states who slashed their tobacco control funding. Why? Self interest. The ALA gets a piece of that tobacco control funding pie.
http://www.dakotapolitics.com/2003_HB_1174
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827172/posts
In January 2003 the North Dakota House of Representatives was presented with a bill which would make it a crime to sell or use tobacco in North Dakota. They voted 88-4 against it.
The legislators who voted against the bill were influenced by anti-tobacco groups, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and American Lung Association, who testified against the tobacco ban. The groups argued that there is no evidence that banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented. The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.