We asked that you be familiar with all the various aspects of the smokers' rights struggle against the anti-smoking campaign before viewing the information on this page because to try to explain all that is wrong would be a rehash of information you can find elsewhere on this site.

Consider the following exchange a "gift" to those fighting deep in the trenches or behind closed doors (where the anti-smokers have forced you to go) because no matter how full of propaganda and sickening it is, it is more fodder for our armament.

A concerned travel agent from the UK writes to NYC C.L.A.S.H., sending a copy of said email to Americans for Nonsmokers Rights (ANR) at the same time:

I am looking at coming to New York, NY next year.

Can you tell me what the law is on smoking? I understand you cannot
smoke in public spaces, so where can you smoke? If you can't smoke outside.
Is it restricted to select areas (inside)?

We in the UK are being lobbied by US representatives to ban smoking in
public places here in London. It's political correctness gone mad. The car
should be first thing to be banned if health is to be considered so important.

Let's remember, from the UK perspective America is the largest polluting
country in the modern western world.
So it does make you ask the question, does America know what they are

This is not supposed to be personal, and it does not mean all Americans
are stupid. But the American constitution is being ignored in my opinion.

Those opposed to smoking have used the tools and weapons to the very
best ability. However, they are responsible for undermining their own
constitution in favor of their own self interest.

They are setting a precedent that will affect their constitution, and
will some day come back at them.
Only then will they see their rights infringed. Unfortunately, it will
be all too late. They can't complain because they set the new rules to
operate by, and so they will be the ones to suffer.
Thank you,

The ANR replies:

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your inquiry.   Please know that ANR does not believe that
prohibition will work, period. Also, ANR does not view the matter of
secondhand smoke as a smokers vs. nonsmokers issue.  The tobacco industry
promotes this idea to deflect attention away from the health issue.

ANR believes smokers have the right to smoke, as long as this does not
infringe on the right of nonsmokers to breathe clean air in public places
and workplaces. Clean indoor air laws or ordinances do not regulate people,
they regulate behavior and are therefore not discriminatory.  Smokers can
eat in smokefree restaurants, they just can't light up.

The vast body of scientific evidence shows that secondhand smoke poses a
serious health hazard to non-smokers.  The only means to protect nonsmokers
from secondhand smoke and to accommodate smokers is to create fully enclosed
and separately ventilated smoking rooms.  (ANR supports this option in
voluntary and enacted clean indoor air policies.)  Only the tobacco industry
vigorously denies the overwhelming evidence about the dangers of secondhand
smoke and the inadequacy of simply segregating smokers from nonsmokers.

The notion that the tobacco industry cares about smokers' rights is a
chilling fallacy.  Tobacco manufacturers knowingly addicts children to a
product which kills them--and then does its best to make sure they keep
buying their products.  The industry opposes clean indoor air ordinances
because smokefree policies encourage people to quit smoking.  The tobacco
industry cares about money, not smokers.

Study after study which looks at sales tax data from communities that have
enacted local clean indoor air laws show that businesses DO NOT suffer
economic downturns.  If that was the case, these local laws would be
repealed in record numbers.  In actuality, the numbers of these laws are
increasing and the trend for smokefree public places and workplaces is

We believe that communities which engage in the democratic process, publicly
considering and debating these issues, then allowing elected representatives
vote on the matter of clean indoor air is the appropriate means for creating
effective public policies.

It is a fact--smoking in public is increasingly becoming socially
unacceptable in this country.  This has changed American culture--the rate
of smoking among adults continues to decrease as the science informs us of
the very real dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke.  Clean indoor air
laws simply sanctify a change in public attitudes about smoking.

Finally a word about freedom and liberty.  To say that clean indoor air
ordinances violate the rights of smokers makes as much sense as arguing that
drunk driving laws violate the rights of drinkers.  The American
understanding of personal liberty has always taken into account the impact
of one person's actions on another.  Our democratic society has always
condoned the creation of laws to prohibit or restrict public acts that are
injurious to others.

We can all get along as long as we respect each other's rights (and the
tobacco industry stops its shennanigans!).  Good luck and thank you for your
interest in our organization.

Also, if you are interested in the topic of pollution with regards to car
exhaust, you may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
at <www.epa.com>.  They would be better at handling that particular issue,
where we primarily handle the topic of clean indoor air with regards to
cigarette smoke.

Per your request, the following counties in New York have 100% Smoke-free
Ordinances in workplaces, including restaurants.

Dutchess County, NY
Erie County, NY
Genesee County, NY
Monroe County, NY
Niagara County, NY
Putnam County, NY

Thank you very much again.
~Holly Holmes

Well, we set Martin straight and, although we stated that we would not dissect this piece of nonsense, we also responded to the ANR to set them straight about one item in particular:
Ms. Holmes,

You recently responded to a United Kingdom gentleman's letter regarding
his distaste at the anti-smoking atmosphere in the U.S.

You wrote:  "Also, ANR does not view the matter of secondhand smoke as a
smokers vs. nonsmokers issue.  The tobacco industry promotes this idea
to deflect attention away from the health issue."

You can repeat that propaganda that it is not a smoker vs. nonsmoker
issue all you like, that doesn't make it true.  Isn't that just splendid
that you don't view it that way.  Well, we do.  It certainly has become
a case of private citizens vs. the well funded, govt. grant receiving,
transfer of smokers' money to the nonsmoker anti-smoking cartel.

The roles have become reversed.  You are the corporation and I'm here as
proof that you are brow beating private citizens who smoke into

I am not a tobacco company and I have no ties to them in any manner or
form.  Here I am telling you, with hundreds of other outspoken PRIVATE
citizens, and thousands more that are not outspoken, that it is
anti-smoking citizen vs. smoking citizen.

You can spout the propaganda that it's always the tobacco company but
I'm here to tell you I will be doing everything in my power to let the
public know that you are against regular people who just want to have a
smoke and you *abridge [see member contribution below] our rights by lying
about trumped up health issues.

Puhleeeze, kick your record player because it's stuck.


*That's their rationalization. We're not barring YOU, just curtailing your behavior. therefore it's not a civil liberties issue any more than saying you can't spit on the subway. The answer, in part, lies in the Privileges clause of the 14th amendment. Key word is "abridging."  Also in the 1st amendment, since they further abridge the rights of smokers to peaceably assemble in ALL public venues. Even Jim Crow allowed blacks to be black in their own ghetto. These bastards don't even grant smokers a ghetto.