The LA Times just published a piece by Jeff Stier, formerly of the American Council on Science and Health and now a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Obama healthcare: Grants just an expensive experiment - latimes.com
In the article, Jeff details how federal money has been going to state and local governments in the form of $100 million in 'community transformation grants,' and $500 million in Communities Putting Prevention to Work grants.
I was denied access to information by the Keeper of Records at the BPHC on April 15 after Jeff Stier mentioned e-cigarettes in a column for The Hill. In the Keeper of Records' response, she said that the information was exempt. However, under Massachusetts law, information presented as FACT is not exempt from public disclosure.
So while the BPHC and those involved in the Communities Putting Prevention to Work program are probably protected from us seeing them say "I recommend e-cigarette use be banned indoors," and "I agree with Bob that the press release should say x," they're not entitled to withhold information like "E-cigarettes contain toxic substances" or "Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids says x, y, and z about electronic cigarettes."
Obama healthcare: Grants just an expensive experiment - latimes.com
In the article, Jeff details how federal money has been going to state and local governments in the form of $100 million in 'community transformation grants,' and $500 million in Communities Putting Prevention to Work grants.
•$6.1 million to Boston for anti-tobacco campaigns. A portion of these funds is going to an anti-scientific, bizarre and secretive campaign to ban the use of e-cigarettes where cigarette smoking is banned. E-cigarettes are tobacco-free, smoke-free devices that use vaporized nicotine to replicate the experience of smoking cigarettes. There is no evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes are any more dangerous than the nicotine gum or patches that the FDA has deemed safe and effective. A ban would create a gratuitous obstacle for people who are trying to quit smoking cigarettes. And if that isn't troubling enough, the Boston Public Health Commission, which received the grant, and the CDC have repeatedly refused to disclose any scientific basis or rationale for the ban. So much for transparency and responsible governance.
I was denied access to information by the Keeper of Records at the BPHC on April 15 after Jeff Stier mentioned e-cigarettes in a column for The Hill. In the Keeper of Records' response, she said that the information was exempt. However, under Massachusetts law, information presented as FACT is not exempt from public disclosure.
So while the BPHC and those involved in the Communities Putting Prevention to Work program are probably protected from us seeing them say "I recommend e-cigarette use be banned indoors," and "I agree with Bob that the press release should say x," they're not entitled to withhold information like "E-cigarettes contain toxic substances" or "Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids says x, y, and z about electronic cigarettes."
Last edited: