Ruling good for Pa.
We at the American Lung Association are thankful for the court ruling that will allow Pennsylvania to recoup nearly $120 million in contested tobacco-lawsuit settlement funds ( “Pa. scores ‘victory,' gets portion of tobacco settlement restored” ). Spent wisely, this recovered subsidy could be the aid our state so desperately needs in its fight for tobacco control.
At the American Lung Association in Pennsylvania, we see, firsthand, the impact of tobacco use. And let me tell you, the picture is not pretty. The Keystone State spends $9 billion a year on health care and lost productivity costs related to tobacco use. Over 20,000 Pennsylvania residents die of lung cancer or other lung disease, and an estimated 11,000 kids in the state become new, daily smokers each year.
How can we stop the unnecessary and rapid depletion of Pennsylvania's financial resources caused by tobacco use? The answer: prevention and cessation programs. Every dollar spent on prevention programs ends up saving Pennsylvania $3 in health care and productivity losses.
Last fall, Pennsylvania lost ground in its battle with the tobacco industry when an arbitration panel cut almost 54 percent of the funding reserved for smoking prevention and cessation, medical research and other health programs. This court decision could help Pennsylvania regain important ground.
The writer is CEO of the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Watson in 33rd
- Gross in 45th
- Coal’s biggest threat
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- ObamaCare solution
- Wolf is the right choice
- Chamber’s choice