RE: Smoking in Bars & Restaurants

Dear Council Speaker Vallone,

     My name is Audrey Silk and I reside in Brooklyn.  I am acting in a private capacity,  as a resident of New York City, having no ties to any pro-smoking groups [see footnote] or tobacco companies.  I have written to you in the recent past with my concerns regarding any further restrictions on smoking.  I was present at the February 23rd City Council hearing to analyze the effects of the "smoke-free era" since it's implementation five years ago.  I was led to believe that this hearing was of your doing and was disappointed that you were not present to hear testimony.  I understand that you will be reviewing the testimony but I am concerned that doing this privately, without the benefit of witness, may cause you to overlook valid testimony as you see fit.  I cannot be sure that you will take both sides into account since I am aware that you favor the anti-tobacco position.

     As much as Council Chair Robles assured those assembled that there is currently no bill in the making to strengthen smoking bans in New York City, I cannot help but feel that it is indeed what may be in our future.  Rather than wait until it is formally presented I feel it is prudent for all who may be affected to work toward deterring any further regulation before it has reached that stage.

     As I said, I have already written to you with verifiable research sources that show secondhand smoke has not been linked to cancer or disease.  I included my dismay at enacting legislation based on the lies the anti-smoking organizations present.  During my testimony at the City Council hearing, time limitations did not allow me to fully express my views, although a copy of my testimony, numerous pieces of research literature and 685 letters from residents of New York City opposing further bans were given to the Council members present.  I hope you have received my testimony paper so that you can review it in full.  Also, take into account that awareness of the hearing was met with short notice.  The 685 letters opposing further bans were collected in less than a two week period.  Imagine how many more would have been, and will be (I believe some were mailed directly to your Queens office), presented had I known about this sooner.  Bear in mind that one third of those letters were signed by non-smokers and that the people you profess to want to protect (bar and restaurant employees) ALL, who were approached, signed these letters.  They are begging not to be victims of paternalism in their name.

     More than anything, I feel the need to address some of which was said at the hearing.  The rhetoric displayed by the health organizations in attendance and their surely well compensated guests was full of the usual statistical lies, twisted logic and bias.  Marc LaLonde, a former Canadian Minister of Health and Welfare, argued that releasing a study that was seriously flawed was justified if it would convince people to stop smoking and that those health messages should be vigorously disseminated and should be "loud, clear and unequivocal" even if unsupported by scientific evidence.  The health organizations' campaign to ban smoking is using exactly the same tactics.   This type of puritanism has no place in a democratic society.

     During one gentleman's testimony he cited  percentages of conducted polls showing how many have and how many have not been affected in regard to dining out and other social activities outside the home since the implementation of current smoking bans.  I do not remember the exact percentages but I DO know that they did not add up to 100%.  If my memory serves me well enough, I recall one poll claimed that about 40% of the population said they socialized outside the home more since the current bans were implemented and that about 20% said they were unhappy and socialized less.  At first glance, it would seem that more people prefer the bans than not, but after a moment of review it is obvious the presentation of these percentages have been offered in an underhanded way.  40% of the population is missing from this poll.  It would be safe to assume that this missing 40% said they weren't affected either way and that the verbal omission of this group of people by the gentleman reciting these numbers lends to the conclusion that his testimony is manipulated for the purpose of bias.  In reality,  what the polls have concluded is that 60% (the majority!) would continue to socialize outside the home if smoking were permitted.  This particular gentleman cited several polls, none of them adding up to 100%.   By his testimony, each poll would be in favor of allowing smoking, had he included the percentage of people who were indifferent.

 The testimony by the anti-smokers went on to claim that SIDS deaths are due largely in part to smoking in the home.  Are you aware that since doctors began recommending that babies be put to sleep on their backs instead of their stomachs, SIDS deaths have decreased by 60%?  Again, the claim that secondhand smoke is accountable for SIDS deaths is conjecture.  The 1998 WHO report also concludes that children are not at risk for illness from secondhand smoke in the home.  Why is it they fail to mention this in their testimony?

     More amazing is the insistence of using the 1993 EPA Report to back up claims that secondhand smoke is harmful when that report has been invalidated and vacated by a Federal Court judge.  In addition to the court decision, medical experts around the world, including the Congressional Research Service,  have blasted the EPA for flouting, compromising and abusing scientific procedure to reach the conclusions the health organizations have grasped onto like a life preserver.  How is it possible to use information from a study that is null and void?  Yet they continue to do so.  That in itself should set off alarms that there is inconsistency and fraud in their overall testimony.  How many other figures and claims are they using that are also a lie or existent only for their purpose of influence?  In a court of law, by using these methods of testimony, they would be found guilty of the crime they have committed.  In this case, the crime is public manipulation and discrimination.

          The testimony of members of health organizations regarding numbers of deaths and illnesses from smoking and secondhand smoke are false and unsupportable.  These people are using numbers that have been making the rounds since the 1964 Surgeon General's Report was produced.  All studies since that time, which have produced results concuring with that report, have been based on meta-analysis (each group using the others' studies to formulate their own) with no original research projects.  The testimony of these members went on to say that they were citing current studies and "mounting evidence".  That is a lie.  There are no current studies or mounting evidence supporting their argument.  They failed to produce any literature to back up their claims.  They recited numbers but did not offer a source of many of these statistics.  This is the trickery they have been using for many years;  throwing out any number they like or which has been reported in the distant past as if it were truth and knowing that the public will eat it hook, line and sinker because of who they are.  It is not anywhere close to truth and are using their organizational name as power to convince people.  That is abuse of authority.

    I, on the other hand, produced the literature of numerous current studies that have found the opposite to be true of what the anti-smoking organizations are claiming.  Not only are they much more current than studies cited (the measly one or two they mentioned) by the anti-smokers but they are attained through ORIGINAL research.  They were not dependant on previous research information to arrive at their findings, keeping them clear of other research bias, unlike the older studies circulating among the anti-smoking groups and being touted as evidence of harm due to secondhand smoke.  It is almost pathetically sad that they continue to hold onto information that is no longer valid and angers me that they are getting away with it.

    Bias in reporting cause of death has been the basis on which they formulate the number of deaths due to smoking and secondhand smoke.   There is nothing scientific about it and the numbers cannot be proved.  Any single doctor can list cause of death as smoking without anyone questioning it.  That death is then added to the total of smoking related deaths without any investigation by outsiders.  Forty years of dedicated experimentation has failed to show clinical, rather than an epidemiological link between smoking and the so called "smoking related illnesses."  A percentage of smokers will die of conditions that seem to be statistically associated with smoking but the constant exaggeration of the level of knowledge about its ill effects is dishonest, speculative and mostly propaganda.  The 400,000 deaths due to tobacco smoking number which the CDC uses and has become "common knowledge" has been ripped to shreds by statisticians who go on to say that the number claimed does not reflect other factors, such as diet and exercise, which may have contributed to the deaths.  There is no determination made that one person should be included in the 400,000 and another should not.  Observational data, which is the only kind available for most human health studies, is uncontrolled and may include a variety of differences.  Surveys by the American Cancer Society reflects this because statisticians report that no two of the one million surveys were filled out identically.  There is no way to determine the actual number of smoking-related deaths each year.  To sum up the outright fraud being perpetrated upon the American people as a fear tactic,  the American Cancer Society issued guidelines to doctors that instructed them to note in the "due to" section of the death certificate that when a person dies of certain conditions and has smoked that the death was due to smoking.  The willingness of the medical profession to blindly observe "guidelines" generates a continuous stream of death certificates, validating the official line that cigarette smoking causes everything from heart disease to uterine cancer, yet there is no shred of scientific evidence to validate any of the certificates.  They are based on nothing more than official "instructions" to put down smoking as the cause of death.  There are no autopsies and no studies on actual human beings.  Knowing how these numbers have been calculated, one need only to consider the immense imagination needed to report on deaths and illnesses from secondhand smoke.  Surely you can see it is impossible to do, yet the anti-smoking zealots continue to tout numbers as if they were absolute fact instead of wishful thinking to promote their agenda.

    It is clear when listening to their testimony that the true goal of these groups and some politicians is not to "protect" others from the "dangers" of secondhand smoke but to create a smoke-free society using scare tactics to influence public opinion.  They roll out those who have undergone laryngectomies to illicit sympathy and fright.  As unfortunate as the illness is, it is definitely not a product of secondhand smoke.  Other than to trick you into believing that this was due to something OTHER THAN someone who chose to smoke, assuming the risks involved  (which cannot be proven to be fact either!), what is the purpose of using their testimony in a hearing to analyze the effects of the Smoke-Free Air Act?  Another case of trickery, deceit and public manipulation at the hands of groups believing their moral standards are better.  They go on to use words and phrases such as "as well as secondhand smoke," "behavioral changes" and "responsible literature."  "As well as secondhand smoke" in their testimony points to their agenda  mainly being concerned with those who smoke.  "Behavioral changes" is outright claiming that they want people to think like they do and do as they do.  As long as there are no standing studies that claim secondhand smoke is harmful, who are they to decide how one should behave?  "Responsible literature" is what they perceive to be responsible.  Again, who are they to decide that what I find pleasure in doing is irresponsible?  It is overwhelmingly evident that puritanism is hard at work at the hands of the anti-smoking activists and some politicians.  Conformity to their moral beliefs that people should not smoke "for their own good" is unacceptable in a democratic society.  Tobacco is a legal product, therefore  it is up to each individual to choose whether they want to smoke or not smoke without the fanatical influence of outside interests.

     The most anyone can claim about secondhand smoke is that it is a nuisance to some.  There will always be someone who will object to any activity you could think of.  Always.  We can't ban everything, can we?  Nor should we.  Inconsideration and nuisance is simply not enough justification for a ban, and since there is no danger from ETS, it can only be concluded that merely a nuisance is part reason for a ban, aside from wanting a completely smoke-free society.  Any demands to ban a nuisance such as tobacco smoke is as selfish and inconsiderate as the activities under scrutiny.  It is hypocritical.  The public can choose whether or not to be in the presence of someone who is smoking the same way someone who claims to be allergic to animals can avoid being near one.

     The current Smoke-Free Air Act in use by New York City to regulate where people can smoke was also based upon the now defunct EPA Report.  It would be quite reasonable to bring this legislation to court in an attempt to have it overturned due to the merits by which it was implemented.  However, those who smoke are reasonable enough to understand that tobacco smoke offends and irritates some people and are more than willing to accommodate them as long as we too are accommodated.  I cannot understand why it is not possible to compromise on this issue.  Separate smoking sections with proper ventilation in ALL establishments should be welcome by both sides.  One group demanding complete accommodation based on a lie should not be entertained.  Additionally, the moral outcast stigma placed on smokers should be removed by enacting legislation that would require all businesses to supply INDOOR smoking areas/rooms to its employees.  It is laughable to assume that sick time is reduced by eliminating indoor smoking when thousands of NYC employees stand in the cold to smoke.  Of course, all this compromise would be for naught if you truly believe the reason for smoking bans is to "protect" the health of others instead of the true reason which is behavior modification of smokers.  And that is unreasonable and tyrannical.  I can only hope that city politicians would not stoop to deciding moral values for others and work towards accommodating all the people they represent.

     While present at the City Council hearing I came to realize that, what should be about how the RESIDENTS of New York City are affected, it was overrun by special interest groups.  I can certainly sympathize with the restaurant and tavern owners in the city and the dilemma they would face should more smoking bans be implemented but I could not help but wonder where the American Cancer Society and Lung Association members in attendance came from.  Are they city residents speaking on behalf of the average anti-smoking citizen in NYC  or are they well paid activists from outside the city, present only to spread their national campaign?  On at least two separate occasions Councilman Robles quoted Abraham Lincoln's words which were painted on the ceiling of the chamber which read, " government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."   Well, I am one of the PEOPLE who are the ones truly being targeted and denied their freedom by anti-smoking forces that have no ties to the community and by politicians glady willing to go along with their plan.  The 685 letters I brought with me to the hearing and the many more I'm sure have been mailed directly to your Queens office are the voice of the PEOPLE who reside within NYC with no political agenda or concern with financial gain or loss, while other letters you may have received in favor of more stringent smoking bans are more than likely being sent to you by outside people who were "rounded up" by the health organizations.  So you see, it is not the average citizen objecting to tobacco smoke, it is the fanatical special interest groups. The residents of New York City should be your priority and taken into account in determining what and how decisions are made by the Council.

     Councilman Robles' reference to Abraham Lincoln's words prompted me to seek out more information on this great man.  You should note the following interesting quotes by Lincoln:

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
( December 1840 )

"Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of "moral right," back upon its existing legal rights, and its arguments of "necessity."  Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it."

 This second quote refers to something which was once believed to be  a "moral right."  The same belief is now being thrust at us by the anti-smoking activists.  The similarity is disturbing.

     At this very moment United States War Veterans who fought under the ideal of protecting the freedoms of Americans are languishing in hospitals unable to smoke their cigarettes which is what brings them pleasure because someone insists they know what's best for them.  This is a slap in the face to our living heroes, and complete disrespect for those that sacrificed their lives, who fought for the very rights the anti-smoking zealots want to take away from them, for no good reason other than their own "moral right."

Sincerely,

Audrey Silk
 

Footnote:  At that time NYC C.L.A.S.H. had not been formed.