Audrey Silk, the founder of NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, feels targeted by organizations like the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and American Heart Association. These national organizations have used donations to lobby for laws to stop smoking throughout the nation.
Now Audrey Silk and her supporters are planning to boycott these nonprofit organizations.
Silk's strategy may seem a little harsh at first, but not when you begin to understand why she has taken this position.
Smoking is a legal act, and these organizations are accepting donations under the guise of research and development and then channeling away these funds to pursue their own political agenda to stop smoking.
They are also misusing their tax-free nonprofit status to lobby for anti-smoking legislation. This could be crossing over into possible legal and ethical issues.
When donating money, it is assumed that it's being used towards research. Instead, some of these donations were being used to change laws. Restaurant and bar owners, to name a few, were damaged financially when this anti-smoking ban went into effect. The clientele became scarce and didn't produce as much cash flow, therefore damaging mom and pop businesses throughout America.
The majority of us never knew these funds were being used to ban smoking. A huge chunk of cancer, lung and heart fund-raising comes from Silk's supporters. They own the bars, dance halls and taverns that hold benefits to help the families that have been hurt by these kinds of hardships. And the thank you they get is bankruptcy.
Lots of money has been made through these entrepreneurs only to be funneled right into the hands of the ones trying to shut down their establishments: the ACS, ALA and the AHA. How much sense does that make?
It seems absurd to ban a legal act. If it's so bad why isn't it illegal? These same do-gooders rely on smokers because they receive money for their cause with each pack of cigarettes sold. Unknowingly, smokers are already paying a hidden tax to the ACS when purchasing cigarettes.
These anti-smoking agencies need to place proper attention to finding cures and remedies. This should be first and foremost. If they want to change laws, they should be very clear and precise about where and what this money will be used for. If these organizations want to be lawmakers, they need to form entirely different groups to push for their own legislation.
Then donors will be able to make informed decisions when giving their hard-earned dollars to a charitable agency. The public should not have to be private detectives. It should be somewhat obvious as to where their offering is going.
Smoking may be bad, but using deceptive tactics to mislead the public is both bad and illegal!
Ducayne's column appears Tuesdays in The Citizen. She can be reached at sacredheart6005@hotmail.com
Silk's strategy may seem a little harsh at first, but not when you begin to understand why she has taken this position.
Smoking is a legal act, and these organizations are accepting donations under the guise of research and development and then channeling away these funds to pursue their own political agenda to stop smoking.
They are also misusing their tax-free nonprofit status to lobby for anti-smoking legislation. This could be crossing over into possible legal and ethical issues.
When donating money, it is assumed that it's being used towards research. Instead, some of these donations were being used to change laws. Restaurant and bar owners, to name a few, were damaged financially when this anti-smoking ban went into effect. The clientele became scarce and didn't produce as much cash flow, therefore damaging mom and pop businesses throughout America.
The majority of us never knew these funds were being used to ban smoking. A huge chunk of cancer, lung and heart fund-raising comes from Silk's supporters. They own the bars, dance halls and taverns that hold benefits to help the families that have been hurt by these kinds of hardships. And the thank you they get is bankruptcy.
Lots of money has been made through these entrepreneurs only to be funneled right into the hands of the ones trying to shut down their establishments: the ACS, ALA and the AHA. How much sense does that make?
It seems absurd to ban a legal act. If it's so bad why isn't it illegal? These same do-gooders rely on smokers because they receive money for their cause with each pack of cigarettes sold. Unknowingly, smokers are already paying a hidden tax to the ACS when purchasing cigarettes.
These anti-smoking agencies need to place proper attention to finding cures and remedies. This should be first and foremost. If they want to change laws, they should be very clear and precise about where and what this money will be used for. If these organizations want to be lawmakers, they need to form entirely different groups to push for their own legislation.
Then donors will be able to make informed decisions when giving their hard-earned dollars to a charitable agency. The public should not have to be private detectives. It should be somewhat obvious as to where their offering is going.
Smoking may be bad, but using deceptive tactics to mislead the public is both bad and illegal!
Ducayne's column appears Tuesdays in The Citizen. She can be reached at sacredheart6005@hotmail.com
The Citizens' Say
There are 1 comment(s)
Pat Doty wrote on Jun 6, 2006 8:05 PM: