Lung Blog

Inregards to the smoking ban. Not far enough. Those smoking politicians will still be allowed to smoke in their private offices and committee rooms. They need to follow the Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke.

"The 2006 Surgeon General’s report on secondhand smoke concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, and that eliminating smoking in indoor areas is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke.

As an asthmatic I need to know which offices to avoid at the capital. Could someone send me a list of Congressmen who plan to smoke in the capital and I can send a letter of opposition to their selfish act.

You awarded the state of Alaska a letter grade of "F" for the Smokefree Air category, yet you also entered the following explanation on the bottom:

"The Smokefree Air grade only examines state tobacco control law and does not reflect local smokefree ordinances. Alaska has made great strides in protecting people from secondhand smoke by passing strong local smokefree ordinances."

Failing to account for local smokefree ordinances in the letter grade strikes me as being intellectually dishonest. This failure presents an unfair distorted picture of Alaska's smoking education and cessation efforts.

I believe your organization means well, but if you persist in misrepresenting society's tobacco cessation efforts, you will lose credibility, trigger backlash, and dry up financial support. MADD was required to close down a number of state offices because contributions dwindled. And why did they dwindle? Because society grew tired of being constantly hectored and lectured by MADD. Nothing any state did about DUI pleased them anymore; they were constantly escalating their demands.

Even if the entire world stopped smoking tomorrow, people would continue to die of other causes. The Bible clearly states "It is appointed unto all men to DIE one time." So to go for prohibition is unrealistic and unenforceable. Back off, be more realistic, and show more respect for what society has already done to discourage smoking. Less rhetoric, more reason.

The State of Tobacco Control is a report card on state laws and as such, the American Lung Association gives grades based on state law. The footnote is intended to clarify that the state grade does not reflect on local smokefree ordinances in a given state.

However, we recognize that much of the smokefree air success is acheived at the local level. Therefore, the methodology does provide for an alternative grade calculation based on local ordinances coverage of the population on a percentage basis. See the description of the methodology at http://lungaction.org/reports/methodology206.html#smokefree

In the 2006 edition of State of Tobacco Control, no state grades were given on this basis but with continued success in several states, this grading approach may be employed in 2007. Hawaii received a B in 2005 based on the ordinances. In 2006, the new state law resulted in an A.

Hello,
You say that you want us to stop smoking because of health reasons. I agree with that on the health reasons. I haved been a smoker for more than 40yrs. For the smokers that are trying to quit on their own, it is harder than the ones that aren't.If you would make the help far more affordable ,like the over the counter products,this would help.As it is now, the over the counter help is so high that no one can afford it. Also if you could get medicare,medicaid to pay for the help products,not just theropy groups, you might find that you would not have as many failures in smoking. The government has to help those that want to quit, just like they do for drinking and drugs.

As I sit here today and wait to learn what type of lung cancer my husband will be diagnosied with I am shocked by the lack of conviction of previous posts. The simple reality is that smoking causes cancer. Other products known or suspected to cause or contribute to cancer have been removed from the market. Yet, we continue to allow tobacco to be marketed? By continuing to use the product we teach our children to be consumers. By continuing to purchase products, including tobacco, from the Philip Morris, Nabisco and Kraft like companies we tell our government that we too support tobacco use. We cannot depend exclusively on our governement to protect us we must take substanial action by boycotting these manufactures and the various products they produce. Grass roots efforts succeed where legislation cannot. If for 1 month not one Philip Morris product was purchased do you think we'd get their attention?

Hello Lung Blog Poster,

As more and more information has come out about dangerous effects of smoking, people are scrambling to find techniques that work to help them stop smoking. Smoking is a highly addictive habit and considering that nicotine acts as both a stimulant and relaxant, it is easy to see why.

I am so ashamed of my home state of Missouri because of the 3 F's they received. I have contacted several of the state officials and either get no answer or get told the issue of public smoking is not a high priority here. Knowing how sick one whiff of tobacco smoke can make me, I can just imagine what it is doing to children who are forced to breathe it in their homes and the family vehicle. Please make a push in Missouri to educate these people. I pray that the federal tax will be raised as high as possible. A nationwide public ban would be great for everyone's health. Why don't the insurance companies get involved more?