[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 55°F  
River stage: 22.8 ft. Falling
Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014

American Cancer Society makes $10,000 in-kind contribution to smoking ban group

Friday, February 4, 2011

The American Cancer Society has made a $10,000 in-kind contribution to the group battling to ban smoking in Cape Girardeau's bars, restaurants and other workplaces, but both parties are staying tight-lipped about what the nonmonetary donation will pay for.

The Citizens for a Smoke-Free Cape filed a campaign disclosure form Jan. 28 reporting the contribution to the Missouri Ethics Commission as required by state law. Any single contribution of more than $5,000 must be reported to the commission within 48 hours of its receipt.

The reporting deadline for quarterly reports for all contributions to campaign committees for the April 5 election is Feb. 24, but this is the first one that required an early filing, said committee spokeswoman Sheri House.

In an e-mailed response, House, who is also employed by the American Cancer Society in Cape Girardeau, said that Smoke-Free Cape will not comment on each contribution and expenditure reported.

"To do so would divert time and energy away from the true focus of the campaign, which is to communicate with Cape voters about the need for strong smoke-free protections from secondhand smoke," she wrote in the e-mail. "We look forward to a spirited campaign based on reputable facts and civil discourse."

House works at the American Cancer Society as community manager of health initiatives, though she said her volunteer work with the committee is separate.

The American Cancer Society, which makes donations to help smoking ban efforts across the country, does not disclose details of campaign contributions, said Bridgett Myers, regional vice president of the division that oversees Cape Girardeau.

It is, however, the policy of the American Cancer Society to support activities that fall in line with its mission of eliminating cancer as a major health problem, Myers said.

"The Citizens for a Smoke-Free Cape and their efforts certainly fall under that criteria," she said, also in an e-mail.

Those who are working to convince Cape Girardeau residents to vote no April 5 said the contribution and the secrecy surrounding it don't surprise them.

"We knew we were the David in this David and Goliath story," said Doc Cain, owner of Port Cape Girardeau and a key member of Stand Up Cape, What's Next? "But I think we knew how that story went."

The contribution is evidence that much of the money funding the smoking ban effort will not come from Cape Girardeau residents, Cain said, and instead will come from outside interests.

"Their money is not coming from our community," Cain said. "I have no doubt that they're going to have a lot of contributions from outside our area."

Cain said his group is still considering whether to form a campaign committee, though he said members are leaning toward it. The deadline for forming a committee is March 6.

The name of the group pushing for a smoking ban in Cape Girardeau didn't change, House said in her e-mail. The Breathe Easy-Cape Girardeau coalition and its volunteers got the issue on the ballot by gathering signatures for the initiative petition. Then, when it became clear it was going to the ballot, a separate group was formed, Citizens for a Smoke-Free Cape. This group registered with the Missouri Ethics Commission as a campaign committee in December.

smoyers@semissourian.com

388-3642

Pertinent address:

106 Farrar Drive, Cape Girardeau, MO


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

The comments for this story should be entertaining.

-- Posted by SteveM on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 7:23 PM

Wow! I was under the assumption that bribery was illegal! Bribery: "The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties."

These grants are just that and they are meant to steal the rights of American citizens of their personal and private property rights. Isn't it time that our elected officials from the city level to the federal level be indicted for bribery and thrown in prison along with the grant makers?

-- Posted by marbee on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 8:27 PM

Not a smoker. I could care less if passes or fails. I believe in indivdual rights - to do or not to do. I have decided no more donations to the American Cancer Association.

-- Posted by retired1 on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 8:32 PM

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is an organization that presents itself as an advocate for cancer victims.

Sounds great, but there are troubling truths. Who gives the ACS money? What does the ACS tell the public about the causes of cancer? What does the ACS tells the public about cancer treatment and cancer prevention? What research Does the ACS fund and what research does the ACS block? The ACS receives money from chemical companies and pharmaceutical companies and, in exchange, the ACS protects their political and economic interests. The ACS protects pharma by pushing on the public their treatment for everything from smoking to being overweight and protects pharmaceutical companies by attacking natural, non-patentable, non-pharmaceutical forms of cancer treatment and spend billions influencing legislators into making laws that benefits pharma, the benefactor of the ACS. Smoking bans and french fries come to mind? Pharma owns the market on alternative nicotine, Splenda, and bariatric surgery. The ACS wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on high salaries and bonuses vs. research by a 10/1 ratio. A cure for cancer would put pharma out of business! It's nothing but a brilliant marketing scam, and people run around in circles thinking they are making a difference. They are, to the pockets of the executives!

-- Posted by marbee on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 8:48 PM

Marbee:

No public official was offered money. This in-kind contribution was to a campaign committee supporting the city public smoking ban.

-- Posted by Matt Sanders on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 9:05 PM

The Citizens for a Smoke-Free Cape ARE using this money to lobby public officials for a ban on a legal product in privately owned properties. Nothing but a form of money laundering.

-- Posted by marbee on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 9:40 PM

It cost Ohioans about $200k to get a city ban, this was money from the Master Settlement Agreement where, from what I gather, that money was not to be used to lobby against tobacco. What is lobbying? SIMPLY DEMANDING not educating. In Ohio, anti-smokers contrived to place over 200 calls per week, per council member! Source: Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation documents obtained through a public records request.

-- Posted by marbee on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 11:01 PM

If smokers knew how bad they smell and how offensive the smell is to others, that fact alone should cause them to quit smoking. As a Hair Stylist I experience this offensive smell everyday and sometimes hurry through the cut to avoid vomiting.

-- Posted by ithenana on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 6:18 AM

They have money to give away! WOW! Let's use it for cancer research or to help a family with bills that are going through cancer treatment! How disappointing!

-- Posted by Mom4Ever on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 6:43 AM

Ithenana: If hair stylists knew how bad they smell because of the perfume they douse themselves in and how offensive the smell is to others, that alone should make them stop using perfume. Hey, if you don't like the smell, then get another job. You pick a job getting close to people, you accept the smells, the ear hair, the dandruff, the greasy hair. What I hear you saying is that you fail to give the customer what they are paying for and cheating them out of an adequate haircut. Tell me where you work so I can avoid your poor quality work.

-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 6:49 AM

VOTE YES !!!!!!

-- Posted by army27m on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 7:12 AM

Actually, the last donation from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the Cancer Society, (with the Lung and Heart Associations getting a much smaller cut) was $99,000,000.00. This is used to lobby for smoking bans. It is divied up state by state in support of the huge marketing campaign, which is also funded by RWJF, but is funneled through other non profits, then into newspaper ads and radio campaigns.

It is my opinion, that rather than lobby to ban smoking in bars, the Cancer Society should be lobbying to ban the selling of all tobacco products. But, if they did, no one would buy the nicotine replacement products of Johnson and Johnson, which include Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, Nicoderm CQ, and Commit Lozenges. And that would result in no more grant money to the pro ban industry. And NO more full page ads in the paper for pro ban.

I, too, will no longer donate to this lobbying group. And, by the way, they are sitting on a $1.6 BILLION DOLLAR interest earning account, and their top two men make over $1 MILLION per year.

-- Posted by smartin1955 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:05 AM

To all of you questioning the source of funding to the Smoke Free Cape campaign, since when do we live in a country where individuals or organizations cannot make contributions to a campaign of their choice, without having to disclose what the money is specifically used for? You can look at the information for any political campaign and see that individuals running for office receive such in-kind donations all of the time. This is nothing new. And since when is the American Cancer Society "an outside organization"? Thousands of dollars are raised in Cape Girardeau County each year for the American Cancer Society through the Relay for Life and other events. The money donated to Smoke Free Cape is not for lobbying, but to support a cause that will make Cape Girardeau a healthier community, one where we have less cancer because of exposure to second-hand smoke. Now if this is not part of the mission of the American Cancer Society, then I don't know what is. Oh, yeah...some of us have forgotten the phenomenal work done by the ACS every day to help women rebuild their lives after undergoing chemotherapy, to provide funding for much needed research, and to assist families with transportation costs accrued while traveling to get treatment. These are good things done by the ACS as is the effort to reduce the risks of cancer in Cape Girardeau.

I find it strange that people are not at all questioning where the money came from to pay for the website for the group StandUp Cape What's Next? (the group in opposition to the smoking ban). Anyone can go to the website for Smoke Free Cape and see a list of public supporters. Nobody know who's supporting StandUp Cape. Hummm, strange don't you think? We don't know who's supporting the opposition to the smoking ban. Do they have something to hide?

-- Posted by WestCounty on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:26 AM

Thank You American Cancer Society. Whoohoo!!

-- Posted by golfhitter on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:31 AM

Maybe Cape can actually catch up with the 21 st century and do something that is right and good for the people and society. Smoking bans are increasing nationally, it is obviously the right thing to do for the health of the citizens of the country. Many states nationally, many cities, etc. And the stats show businesses don't die, people don't move, etc. Cape can be progressive and move forward and not keep getting stuck behind the rest of the state, the country and the world. Go Cape!

-- Posted by CalavoMan on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:37 AM

Matt, you can spin this as much as you want. a bribe is still a bribe, no matter how many front groups you launder it through.

The allopathic health (sickness) industry continues to funnel monies through surrogate cohorts to push their products:

http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/glo...

http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/glo...

http://www.pfizer.com/files/responsibili...

While you can try to sanitize the ACS as a tax exempt NGO working for the public good you'll be surprised that:

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/...

where they fund these sideshows to disguise their ineffectual prevention and treatment efforts in favor of these phantom miasma agitations:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6537...

Free free to defend them though. Only pardon me for questioning them because the only interest that Williams Street complex bunch in Atlanta, Ga has in either of us is a name to add to a relay luminary and another number to add in their number tortured statistics.

-- Posted by mntvernon on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:54 AM

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. The three antismoking crusades of the last century have been eugenics-driven. In eugenics, health is erroneously reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon and where a self-installed elite attempt to engineer/breed a "better" human herd. In addition to a genetic aspect, eugenics views tobacco and alcohol as racial poisons needing to be eradicated (negative eugenics). Antismoking was rife in early-1900s USA. Smoking and tobacco sales were banned in quite a number of American states.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles......

Dillow (1981) notes that the bulk of antismoking claims were fraudulent and inflammatory. Dillow fails to note that the antismoking crusade of the early-1900s USA was eugenics-driven: Eugenics was mainstream in the USA at this time. At the turn of the last century, eugenics was mainstream in the USA, the UK, some European countries, and a number of Scandinavian countries. The USA appears to be the most prominent. The mega-wealthy in the USA (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Kellogg) were supporters and funders of eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) -- and still are. Rockefeller and Ford were also prominent supporters of Nazi eugenics.

(Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework).

Rockefeller and Ford had trade agreements with the Nazis through the 1930s (see links below). There was also a very intimate relationship, through treaties, between Rockefeller's Standard Oil and Germany's IG Farben.

California performed, by far, more sterilizations than any other state in the first half of the last century.

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA...

Some insight into the connection between American eugenics - California in particular - and Nazi eugenics.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

Antismoking reared its ugly head - again as an aspect of eugenics -- in Nazi Germany. Hitler was a student of American eugenics. (It should also be noted that medicos and lawyers had the largest memberships within the Nazi Party).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...

The current antismoking crusade is also eugenics-driven, albeit more masqueraded, i.e., crypto-eugenics. Please see the Godber Blueprint ( www.rampant-antismoking.com ).

Antismoking always proceeds in the same way. Through "public health", it promotes a plethora of inflammatory lies (propaganda) where the intent is to outrage particularly nonsmokers so that they will not question smoking bans or the persecution of smokers. Where antismoking is rampant, it is a critical symptom of dangerously misguided Public Health, e.g., medicos venturing again into dangerous social-engineering. Eugenics is a dangerous, shallow framework. In attempting to engineer a superior human "herd" (in biological terms), it promotes cruelty, bigotry, racism, tyranny, and social division/upheaval: It brings out the worst in human nature.

There are now many state-government health departments in the USA (and the world) that are dominated by eugenicists. Not good.

-- Posted by harleyrider1978 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 9:21 AM

harleyrider1978 and mntvernon: I know you're not from Cape Girardeau or even from Southeast Missouri because you talk with way too much rhetoric and way too much in favor of the tobacco industry. Listen, people can smoke if they want to, I don't care. What I do care about is when the smoking of some infringes upon the rights of others and this happens when smokers smoke in places where other people have to work. People working on a line or in an office shouldn't have to deal with the smoke from somebody working next to them. This whole issue is about health. It's not about the rights of businesses or eugenics. If you're not from here, mind your own business.

-- Posted by WestCounty on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 9:35 AM

WestCounty, "If you're not from here, mind your own business." Perhaps you'd ask ACS to do the same. While you extol the wonderful work they do, for every dollar they collect in the state of Missouri only 9 cents is returned in direct services.

It is time for the public to hold these self-appointed NGO's accountable for the vast sums they suck from public and private sources and the pitiful results they've achieved.

As far as not being there, true. Once they've slapped this on the citizens of CG they'll move on to other areas to inflict their tripe trumpeting their success there.

You are being sold a sorid 'bill of goods' to perpetuate the opulent lifestyles ,careers, and reputations of the ACS officials and you're demanding that dissent be silent. The answer is no.

Nothing creates an enemy than find out you've been taken. There's one effort they'd been given to end this mess once and for all:

http://www.dakotapolitics.com/2003_HB_11...

only look who stood up to defeat it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/8...

and here on page 37:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v58x8ps...

so as far as not being from there I suppose I should bypass CG on my way to the Charleston Azalea festivities? You think?

The National Cancer Act of 1971 has an estimated 200 billion gone and this is what they have to show for it? tobacco industry? plezze, give me a break.

-- Posted by mntvernon on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:22 AM

You don't like people out of this area giving truthful information.

But an out of town collective that hands Cape Breath Easy group ten grand to further their agenda is OK.

No body is forced to breath SHS, it is not a health argument, it is a property rights argument.

-- Posted by hanover on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:27 AM

Good for the ACS! Thank you from a non-smoker.

-- Posted by sports101 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:48 AM

The whole world is awake after mayorgeneral bloomberg passed the outdoor bans.....The myth of smoking bans is busted and they know it.The ACS doesnt hand over chump change for no reason.The acs dumped 100,000 grand in south dakota to pay for lawyers to defend their smoking ban against a petition. Then they spent another 400,000 in south dakota to pay for pro-smoking ban media blitzes in the state prior to a referendum vote!

As I have shown the ACS was created as a new face on an old enemy prohibition......There back again and their agenda is just about over!

-- Posted by harleyrider1978 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:50 AM

It's not a property rights issue because I'm too **** stupid to see it as one.

-- Posted by bearded_sage on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:35 AM

I smoked for years. I mean years!!!! I don't like this being dragged into PRIVATE property but it is inevitable and is only a matter of time. We need to quit guys.

I ordered a vapor cigarette by my wife's, kids and cardiologist's orders and now I have quit smoking cigs. Its not bad at all and now I am using it less. Try it. It's not bad.

Ok go ahead a beat me up about it.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:38 AM

"This whole issue is about health. It's not about the rights of businesses or eugenics" Its also much about civil liberties and choices. I choose to go to restaurants and sit in the non smoking area. I also choose to allow the restaurant owners and club members to choose what legal leisure activities they allow in their private establishments rather than let others force them to accept their CHOICE! This particular ordinance is too restrictive in its current form. I suggest we VOTE NO in april and rethink and rewrite it and let the Council vote on the NEW and less restrictive ordinance that contains substance that both parties can agree on.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:46 AM

Thank you, ACS!

-- Posted by southeast on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:56 AM

Wake up, Greywolf. If this ordinance is voted down by the citizens of Cape Girardeau, then the city council's not going to propose another ordinance. They were talked to about trying to come to some compromise before the smoke free issue ever went to the petition phase and they're not going to pass ANYTHING about smoking unless their hand is forced by the people, as it was with the current group. The current proposed ordinance is restrictive, but fair and consistent for all places where smoking would be an issue. There are no acceptable levels of secondhand smoke, even if you sit in a non-smoking section (as I always try to do), you're still being exposed to secondhand smoke, whether you like it or not.

-- Posted by WestCounty on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:57 AM

WestCounty, are you trying to tell us you are unable to find one venue from this list:

http://www.breatheeasymo.org/directory.a... that is deserving of your patronization?

Or do you feel so empowered to force all business owners to bend to your ideology?

-- Posted by mntvernon on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:24 PM

Like YOU said WestCounty, "The current proposed ordinance is restrictive" and I AGREE! VOTE NO in April and force this Breathe easy group to milk their own cow on their side of the fence and let others milk theirs on their side of the fence.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:35 PM

The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.h...

And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"

http://www.smokershistory.com/SGlies.htm...

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

-- Posted by CarolT on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM

No more donations ACS! I'm done.

-- Posted by Topo_Gigio on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:39 PM

A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool.

-- Posted by Responder1 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:48 PM

mntvernon, there are lots of those places that I regularly patronize, however if I like the food in an establishment I'll eat there and sit in the non-smoking section, if I have to. I'm not against businesses, just against second-hand smoke. You and many others are refusing to see that this issue isn't just about restaurants and bars and it's not about the rights of business owners. It's about living in a healthier community.

-- Posted by WestCounty on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:52 PM

Greywolf, you can "milk your cow" wherever you want to, I don't care. It's your right to "milk" wherever you want to as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

-- Posted by WestCounty on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:55 PM

Hhhmmm, West County ... Interesting moniker. Are you one of the self-righteous St. Louis fascists who demanded all smoking be banned in the entire county because only banning it in certain cities would cause them to lose business as people flocked to other cities that still recognize private property rights?

I am 100% opposed to the proposal. I am incensed that all 3 times I was asked to sign a petition in support of the ban it was totally misrepresented by the volunteers. I would guess that the majority of signatories have no idea what they were really supporting based on the way it was presented to me.

If this passes, it is very simple. Jackson is close by. Jackson already has a lower tax rate. I have already greatly increased my shopping in Jackson. Why not eat dinner and grab a drink while there.

Seriously, if this passes, the respect I have for the general populace of Cape Girardeau, already badly damaged by their willingness to vote for every tax that the city comes up with no matter how wasteful, stupid or ill-conceived, will wither and die. If this passes I don't want to hear one more word about Cape being conservative, pro-business, a bastion of family values or any other bunk. This is about basic individual freedom and private property rights. This is the gateway to the slippery slope.

The only thing more stupid than this would be to pass something like a 300 foot noise ordinance to appease a couple of whiners as it would irrevocably damage the nightlife in downtown Cape and ... oh, they want that too? #*$()!!!

-- Posted by eagle on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 2:10 PM

Peeing in the pool? If I start to get in a pool and I can see or small pee, I will make the choice not to go in. Same as with a smoking establishment. What a boneheaded comparison!

-- Posted by smartin1955 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 2:16 PM

Eagle...you may be able to shop and dine in Jackson for a short time, but the statewide smoke-free policy is coming soon.

-- Posted by southeast on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 2:53 PM

Perhaps Southeast, but the same worthless lawmakers in Jeff City found it necessary to allow smoking in the Capital building in THEIR PRIVATE OFFICES just recently. Seems to me if they vote a State wide prohibition on smoking in ALL businesses than they would be nothing but hypocrites wouldn't they? I prefer not to take a ride on this "slippery slope" you so much endorse.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 3:43 PM

REALLY? southeast? you best put the bong down.

Lessee, Bray(ing) has earned a well deserved return to private life,

Fraser lost to that evil, evil Lamping.

That 'obesity crisis waiting to happen' Oxford got her head handed to her by the other party.

Ellinger is busy arguing that drug testing for TANF recipients is too demeaning.

Still, Kelly, & Schaffer are running around trying to keep UMC from getting cut more.

Could you please set aside bogarting that joint and enlighten us great unwashed as to who is left to bring about this magical legislation?

-- Posted by mntvernon on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 4:02 PM

Perhaps it is coming. There are always threats to personal freedom when a state elects a democrat governor, especially with so many wealthy leftists in St. Louis. There is a reason that Missouri is losing a congressional seat.

Recent census figures show us that people move from less freedom/higher taxes to more freedom/lower taxes states. MO tax rates make it clear that while it welcomes impoverished seniors, wealthier, financially self-reliant seniors are not welcome (MO was recently barely squeezed out of the top worst retirement states list by... IL *cough*). There are many other aspects of Missouri that despite the rhetoric are pretty anti-business which economic reality and census data clearly show.

So if Cape passes this smoking ban I will spend more (most?) of my time and money in Jackson and other nearby communities. If the state passes it I will look at other options for my businesses.

I really don't care much about the smoking issue either way, but I care very deeply about private property and business owner rights and limited government. I already deal with layers and layers of stupid gov't regulation in the name of consumer protection that costs consumers a lot of money and protects them from very little. If this passes and the state is willing to tell private businesses entering into a voluntary contract with adult consumers that smoking is not allowed, there is no real limitation understood on the state government to regulate any private commercial contracts.

-- Posted by eagle on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 4:17 PM

Responder1 wrote, "A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool."

Actually Responder you should try to think a bit beyond the sound bites. A swimming pool changes its water about once a year. A restaurant changes its air about 50,000 times a year. Do you begin to see the difference?

Also: if you truly believe you can get in a public pool with hundreds of screaming kids and have NO **** in that pool you're living in a dream world!

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

-- Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 5:14 PM

mntvernon...I haven't touched the stuff since the late 70s, but nonetheless MO will be smoke-free eventually. Don't know when or who will do it, but it will happen.

-- Posted by southeast on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 7:18 PM

Well, southeast, we both were around in 1971 when on the state of the union speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Canc...

and some 40 years later:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028982_Americ...

and:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028015_war_on...

While you believe in some mythical politician will appear out of the mists....that's your business.

Considering the damage done in IL and the exchange between Drea and Rep. Cunningham last year:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-... I do not put out much hope in that.

BTW, I didn't know Texas Gold herbs were around back then:

http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-st-char...

-- Posted by mntvernon on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 7:54 PM

The American Cancer Society: The World's Wealthiest "Nonprofit ...The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accumulating great wealth in its role as .... to do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS fails to make ..... there has been dramatic progress in the treatment and cure of cancer, ...

www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthi... - Cached - SimilarThe American Cancer Society runs with the money and away from the ...Nov 29, 2010 ... The American Cancer Society (ACS) was back in the news this month when ... do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS has failed ..... mission is supposed to be preventing and finding a cure for cancer, ...

truthonmedecine.wordpress.com/.../the-american-cancer-society-runs-with- the-money-and-away-from-the-cure/ - Cached

-- Posted by harleyrider1978 on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:37 PM

If you've never read the DeWeese Report on "Sustainable Development", here is an excerpt:

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the "precautionary principle." That means any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped, even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established -- and even if the potential threat's largely theoretical. That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy, just in case. Many are now finding non- elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non- elected "sustainability councils" armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

In other words, Socialism

-- Posted by marbee on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:47 PM

The founding of the U.S. was financed by tobacco, yet the nannies would ban the use of it now. And look how many famous people smoked and died of old age. In fact, some of the world's oldest people are, or were smokers. It's true, the person who lived longer (122 yrs) than anyone else in the world to date, Jeanne Louise Calment, smoked her entire life as did many others. Smokers already pay more for health insurance. That nonsense that smokers cost more to the health care system is propoganda that many have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. 1/4 of the population did NOT cause costs to rise the way they have! But government is allowing big pharma to use laws and our uneducated elected officials in a brilliant marketing scam for their own brand of nicotine. And THAT'S where everything went wrong, by allowing pharma's nanny organizations as tools to use their propoganda unchecked. It's time for the PEOPLE to unite and put an end to it!

-- Posted by marbee on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 10:48 PM

This is a health issue not a rights issue. All I can say is people who own their own businesses such as restaurants have to follow rules. Think about it, they have to follow the food inspectors rules and regulations not to mention the fire martials rules as well as others. They don't really get to run their business like they want. There are health and safety regulations that they have to follow. It is proven that smoking causes lung cancer and it is proven that second hand smoke is harmful so I don't really understand what the big deal is. They are not really running their own business like they want despite what they say. If the businesses think they are then they are really stupid!

-- Posted by Spinning on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 10:31 AM

The key to winning this election isn't winning an argument about the effect of smoking bans on public health or the bar business. The key is to make sure all the people who naturally oppose smoking bans are registered to vote and show up at the polls. Believe me, that is a huge task.

-- Posted by BillHannegan on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 2:12 PM

I am offering no opinion for or against smoking ban. I am troubled by a local charity giving away money without telling us what they gave away. Obviously they did not give cash or not an "in kind" gift. Maybe they gave them some pamplets on health issues of smoking to be distributed and save ACS postage. Who knows.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

At least ACS a gift to an organization related more or less to an area they are involved in. It's not like they gave it for MS or liver research. But we don't know how well run this other organization is run. I certainly think there is a certain ARROGANCE when a charity asks for money and then won't identify how they spent it. If nothing else, it is a bad PR move. If innocent, TALK. If not innocent, TALK. No one is asking the American Cancer Society to reveal the identity of their donors, just how they have expended their non-profit charitable funds. If it were cash, that is transparent enough. My guess is it might be fee for trainers they paid, or mailing lists. More likely mailing lists.

-- Posted by casual_observer1 on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 2:15 PM

casual observer observer1 you are correct. I wouldn't want to name the bribers who'd paid me to go away and persecute this phantom miasma instead http://truthonmedecine.wordpress.com/201...

Tony Howard of BP peteroleum came on TV, right after the ACS declared the gulf free of PAH's, and said "I'm SAWWEEE"....true, he and the ACS are the sorriest bunch of tricksters ever.

Oh, spinner, you might want to view a real medical professional with credibility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1Oa... and lay off the hysterics of the "obesity-crisis-waiting-to-happen" SG of yours.

Then again being in a continual "State of Fear" and reverence for "Official Sponsors of Birthdays" slogan is normal.

Pardon those of us that no longer believe in their falsehoods.

-- Posted by mntvernon on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 3:10 PM

Spinning: All I can say is people who own their own businesses such as restaurants have to follow rules. Think about it, they have to follow the food inspectors rules and regulations not to mention the fire martials rules as well as others.

The health dept. is responsible for protecting the public from UNSEEN dangers like mice, cockroaches, etc, bad food, etc. Last time I looked you could see and smell smoke. Close to 90% of the weight of tobacco smoke is composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and plain water (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). This mix is usually called "fresh air." For this we take away property rights? So that someone's smoke-free preference can trump an owners rights?

And from the well respected Cato Institute: The Second-Hand Smoke Charade http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php... Quote: It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion. So what explanation can there possibly be for trampling our citizens private property rights?

In 1998 the American Cancer Society finally retracted their 53,000 statistic, stating in a press release: "The American Cancer Society will no longer use the statistic because we too have been unable to acquire the documentation to support this citation."

In other words, it was a lie.

Wonder why the figure is still being used? They simply can't stop lying.

-- Posted by marbee on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 4:28 PM

I have reviewed a real medical professional mntvernon!

-- Posted by Spinning on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 5:59 PM

WestCounty asked, "since when do we live in a country where individuals or organizations cannot make contributions to a campaign of their choice, without having to disclose what the money is specifically used for?"

er... probably since the antismoking movement jumped all over Big Tobacco for the same sort of shenanigans that the antismoking movement is up to nowadays.

Re:comparing the two groups and their financing: take a look at the two websites. See which one is a VERY expensively designed slick multi-page production and which one is a four color text probably done in basic html on a single page.

It's also fun to note that four out of the five full color photographs on the SmokeFree Cape page feature children. Since the major battleground is the bars one is forced to wonder just what kind of place the Cape might be if it's got children regularly hanging out in bars being "poisoned" by smoke all the time.

-- Posted by Michael J. McFadden on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 4:57 PM

Thank you ACS for the donation to the cause of preventing lung cancer by banning workplace smoking.

The children in the ads will hopefully grow up and will work as adults in smoke free business were they will not be exsposed to cancer causing smoke. Hopefully they will never have to be treated for cancer.

I would rather donate to prevent cancers than to help treat someone after they have cancer.

-- Posted by Ray James on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 8:26 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Map of pertinent addresses