Customer Reviews

CancerScam: Diversion of Federal Cancer Funds to Politics

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was a little surprised to see what the professional reviewers said about this book, and can only conclude that they reviewed other people's reviews, not the actual book. At no point do the authors claim that smoking is good for smokers, nor is the tone of this book "shrill". They say, "Today, no one seriously claims that smoking or tobacco use in any form is beneficial to health. Indeed, it is almost universally accepted that smoking can be injurious to one's health." Contrary to the claims made by the pro reviewers, the authors noted an interesting shift in the behaviour of several non-profit organizations and set out to document it.

In the 80's, AIDS activists succeeded in diverting federal money out of cancer research and into their pet program. This inspired public health "charities" like the American Cancer Society and its sister organizations, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association, to try lobbying for funds. The most obvious source of funding was cigarette taxes with proceeds earmarked for ACS, ALA, and AHA, but because of open disputes amongst the various groups competing at the public trough in California, ACS decided to try a more low-key and backdoor approach. The answer was the American Stop Smoking Initiative Study (ASSIST), funded by the National Cancer Institute arm of the National Institutes for Health. The ACS guided NCI's grants to several states, and ACS co-administers the programs with the states. ASSIST acts as an umbrella organization for a Potemkin "grass-roots" movement, whose facade is an education program, but whose real goal is to lobby states to (1) increase cigarette taxes, and (2) divvy up the proceeds among ACS and the rest of the groups under the ASSIST umbrella.

Locally, I found out that this was exactly what was happening. The local ASSIST coordinator was careful to never allow himself to be identified as anything but a concerned citizen. A leading state research grant recipient was simultaneously a member of the state board that granted research grants. Once the tobacco settlement was concluded, the money got diverted into such "anti-smoking" programs as park maintenance.

Bennett and DiLorenzo do an admirable job of tracking down the details of the ASSIST sham, from its founding, through its training of members by the Advocacy Institute lobbying foundation, to its hollow shell grass roots movement. This book is a great detective story, and frankly I'm surprised at the reaction of the professional reviewers, who appear to approach the material from the left. Do they not see the obvious parallels to the war on drugs, which the left (in general) opposes (correctly in my opinion)? They appear to have only read and heeded the concluding chapter, where DiLorenzo and Bennett point out that anti-smoking crusader Stanton Glantz suggests that the best response to civil libertarian arguments is "ridicule ... You can also suggest that the person is simply a shill for the tobacco industry." Consider how well it works with regard to the war in Iraq: is any opponent to the war by that fact a shill for Saddam Hussein? Obviously not. Quite so with the Tobacco Wars: opposition to Nanny State interference with personal choice does not necessarily imply that a person is a smoker or on the payroll of a tobacco company.