Some major charitable organizations have veered from supporting research and helping people with problems into campaigning for regulation. The Telegraph recently reported (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbc ... 5/-1/XML07) a litany of complaints by the American Lung Association about New Hampshire's insufficiently high taxes and failure to regulate people's lives sufficiently. The article is highly slanted, treating the ALA as if it were an expert authority rather than a lobbyist. The ALA is acting like a schoolmarm criticizing a student (New Hampshire's government) that's failed to carry out its assignment (passing the laws which the ALA demands) and giving it D's and F's in an effort to shame our legislators into obedience.

A look at the ALA's homepage (http://www.lungusa.org) suggests that controlling people's lives is now its principal activity; it is handing out more F's to Congress for not having handed in all the legislative assignments it gave them, and most of the rest of the page is about its various demands for government control.

Unfortunately, there are still many people who give to the ALA on the strength of its past reputation. This is a serious mistake.

The people who take over charities and turn them into advocacy organizations for government control are displaying immense contempt for people. In their view, people are incapable of making decisions for themselves and are best off when wise guides compel them to act in certain ways. The ALA views itself, together with legislators as its "pupils," as providing this forcible but benevolent control.

But people who act out of automatic obedience, under the threat of penalties, aren't better off for it. Being treated in this way makes them lose the ability to judge for themselves and take the initiative needed to insure their long-term well-being. People come to trust and obey the government, whatever it does, and to be passively obedient.

The American Lung Association deserves an "F" from all of us who know we own our lives.

I take it you must be one of those who fought for smoking to end in bars and restaurants while the state government raised tobacco taxes yet used NONE of it for smoking education and cessation? While they used very little of the tobacco company fine money to be used for those same programs. I am not in favor of government regulations either. I also do not favor a fat cat government to tout their "smoking efforts" while in fact they do little to fight it. I agree with the "F" and maybe it will wake some people up to the lies and deception this state government uses.
Can you tell me how much the state got from the tobacco companies last year for these programs yet they used basically none if it for that purpose?
They say they want to fight smoking yet used increased taxes to offest their budget all the while hoping no one stops buying them so they can fund their irresponsible spending. They spend little to nothing for smoking education and cessation. The only thing they should feel good about is that the public is so naive to their tactics.
You critisize the ALA but say nothing about the state and how it banned smoking in bars when in fact most had already done it on their own and the bill was a publicity stunt that in reality had little effect.
Do your homework and realize the state goverment is more guilty for unnecessary legislation and laws than the ALA will ever be.