Friday, February 1, 2002Letters to the editor
Rowland uses bad logic for cigarette tax hike.
To the editor:
Do politicians have no pride in saying things that are
utterly ridiculous in public? Gov. John G. Rowland
can't possibly believe his own words when he says a
higher tax on cigarettes, enjoyed by some, is
"voluntary," therefore not really a tax at all
(Associated Press news story, The Advocate, Jan.
25).I don't know whether to be more offended at being
singled-out as a smoker to pay extra taxes or more
embarrassed for him for his production of convoluted
logic with no concern for how it sounds. I won't even
begin to list all the products or services that are taxed
but only voluntarily used by small number of people,
because I would be guilty of participating in the same
game as the governor. I have more pride.One-third of his constituents smoke. Politicians take
an oath to protect the rights of everyone, not just the
majority. Yes, I could choose not to smoke, thereby
avoiding a tax. But that works at odds with the
governor's objective -- to raise revenue. He knows that
as well as I do. He certainly can't be hoping that
smokers would quit. Anyone with sense can see that
he says one thing and hopes for another. Otherwise,
what's the point of raising taxes on a product if the
well is to dry up?This conflicts with the anti-smoking crusaders'
ideology to reduce smoking. I'll never understand why
they embrace it so lovingly when, in effect, the
underlying hope by legislators is for smoking to
continue in order to pad their budgets. Members of
the anti-smoking brigade are the ones being used
when they think it's the other way around. Not to
mention that reports show that 97 percent of tobacco
consumption is by adults. The anti-smoking lobbyists
would have the legislators punish 97 out of every 100
in some wild-eyed belief that it will cut down on
smoking or that the three teenagers they're looking to
protect won't take it up because of the price.No matter how you slice it, it comes down to the
punishment and abuse of a minority for using a legal
product that some (not everyone!) see as
unacceptable behavior.Gov. Rowland has been described by some as
practical. I say we tax those who voluntarily offer that
opinion. It isn't everyone's.Audrey Silk
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Via e-mail
The writer is founder of NYC Citizens Lobbying
Against Smoker Harassment.EMS response
To the editor:
I wish to respond to a letter regarding Stamford EMS'
response times to the Edgehill Complex area (The
Advocate, Jan. 27). The letter stated "Stamford's
emergency medical service has had five times as
many calls to this part of town since Edgehill opened
a senior facility on Palmer Hill Road, and EMS
records show some of these trips took as long as
seven minutes to complete."The fact that we see more calls there is accurate.
The response time implication is not.The analysis the individual is alluding to was one
performed for period April 25 to July 25, 2001. There
were a total of 34 responses, with only two being
seven minutes. In fact, the average response time
was 3.6 minutes compared with an average response
time to that area before construction of Edgehill of 4.2
minutes.Of the two seven-minute responses, there is no
indication whatsoever that traffic was the reason.
Both calls were, in fact, responded to from other
response zones because the primary ambulance that
typically responds to that area was out on another
emergency call.I am simply responding to protect the good name of
Stamford EMS Inc.Andrew F. Pecora
Stamford
Via e-mail
The writer is chief executive officer of Stamford EMS
Inc.Park vs. school
To the editor:
Where are our city leaders' heads these days?
They have raised the possibility of spending nearly
$60 million in the future on the Mill River Corridor
instead of building -- or at least remodeling -- a
pre-existing building to become a very needed third
high school. A walkway along the Mill River may look
pretty, but aside from attracting the homeless to
sleep there, what are the benefits?Reducing overcrowding in our public high schools will
have several benefits, such as allowing smaller class
sizes, less chance of violence and a more-personal
learning style.Stamford's future lies in its schools, not in a walkway
that will attract some outsiders to look at and then
leave.Citizens of Stamford should demand that their leaders
realize that education is always a better investment
than a pretty, expensive park.Salvatore Buchetto
Stamford
Via e-mail
The writer is a Cloonan Middle School teacher.
*
The Advocate welcomes letters reflecting readers'
diverse views. Letters on timely subjects are
published as space allows. Those of 250 words or
fewer are given preference.Letters are edited for grammar, clarity, accuracy and
brevity. Poetry, third-party or anonymous letters,
those signed with a pseudonym or letters submitted
to other publications are not published.Address and day and evening telephone numbers are
required for verification purposes, although this
information is not published. While we cannot
respond to or publish every letter we receive, we
appreciate the interest of all who write. Address
letters to: Letters to the Editor, The Advocate, 75
Tresser Blvd., P.O. Box 9307, Stamford, CT 06904.
Letters also can be submitted by facsimile (964-2345)
and through the Internet at
letters.advocate@scni.com.