The Boston Public Health Commission reports the city's won more than $12 million in two federal stimulus grants to combat obesity and smoking.
In addition to ad campaigns and public-health measures, the money will also let the city hire 50 fulltime outreach workers and 50 students over the two-year length of the grant.
The commission says roughly half the money will go to a variety of anti-fat campaigns, including "counter-advertising" against sugar-laced beverages, promote bike-sharing and community gardening programs and figure out how to increase phys-ed activities in Boston schools (Ed. note: Good luck with that in all the 1930s-era schools without gyms).
The other half will go toward anti-smoking programs, including efforts to limit areas available for smoking and to increase cigarette prices and to ramp up the number of smoking-cessation services available to Boston residents. The commission says it also hopes to "create 1,000 smoke-free residences in Boston."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
This is the economic stimulus
By NotWhitey
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 5:46pm
This is the economic stimulus money? The money intended to create jobs? We obviously have enough jobs now, so we can piss the money away.
12 million to educate people, but we close 10 libraries for ...
By kevin mccrea
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 9:18pm
3.6 million dollar deficit to close 10 libraries? but we have 12 million to educate people about bad behavior?
why don't we take 3.6 million of that 12 million and have classes in those libraries about how to stay healthy,
there are probably many books available at those libraries to study and learn from
The terms of that grant
By Nonymouse
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 10:05pm
The terms of that grant program were very specific - the classes probably wouldn't have met the requirements. It was all based around the MAPPS interventions, which are Media (advertising campaigns, mostly), Access to healthy foods, Point of Purchase/Promotion (restricting point of purchase advertising or promotions in terms of healthy foods vs. non-healthy foods), Price and Social Support and Services (usually stop smoking hotlines, etc.). The grant was very specific, though, that jobs had to be created with the money so the projects funded should all include the creation of new positions.
There we go!
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 11:47pm
That's what I'm talking about!
Twelve million to tell people not to die sooner. Awful. What part of "overpopulation" do people not understand? Cigarettes and sugar are the new Black Death, except this time, we get to control population with something that tastes good and is relaxing and fun.
Money
By plt3012
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 8:06am
I was wondering about the use of federal 'stimulus' money for anti-smoking use. Wasn't that the reason the tax on smokes was raised to what it is now? The state raised the tax and said the funds raised would be used for educating people on the danger of smoking. The money has been used for everything but that. Now, federal funds for jobs is being used to do just this.
I said back when this push for more tax money was targeted against tobacco that the day would come when the number of people using tobacco would decline, with that the money going to the state would drop. The search would then focus on something else. Now there is talk of taxing certain types of food or candy or tonic (old Boston term for soft drinks!). I don't smoke. Never did. I have family members who do and I wished to hell they didn't smoke. But really, the state should consider 'living within their means' and leaving people to hang onto and spend their money as we see fit.
Federal 'stimulus' funds should be used to directly create jobs. The funds should not be used for obscure indirect reasons. This whole 'stimulus' funding thing looks more and more like a sham.
Shocker
By Marc
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 9:18pm
Amazing! I'm shocked and appalled.