On Tuesday, June 26th, 2001, the Suffolk County Legislature held a public hearing regarding a proposal to ban smoking within 50 feet of government owned buildings and hospital entrances.

 That bill died.  Legislator Angie Carpenter has seen fit to resurrect it as of February 2002.

First we were kicked outdoors.  Now they want 50 feet.  Next they'll have you standing in the middle of traffic and still claim the smoke bothers them while yelling across 2 lanes of vehicle exhaust laden traffic.

As the Founder of NYC C.L.A.S.H. I personally attended the hearing held in the summer of 2001 and strongly reminded them that such a bill loses sight of what their responsibilities are to all the people, not just a few.  Please join me in defending our rights and standing up to this ever increasing tyranny that is gripping the nation and stripping us of respect as equal citizens.

It is imperative that you write and/or call the Suffolk County Legislature immediately!  Ask them to provide evidence that "there is no safe level," as the health organization alarmists exclaim, when it comes to tobacco smoke OUTDOORS.

CONTACT THE SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATORS

Phone: (631) 852-1700 (Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature)
Phone: (631) 854-4100 (BILL SPONSOR Angie Carpenter)
You can personally visit their contact page at http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/legis/contacts.htm for additional forms of contact information.

We have taken the opportunity of providing you with all 18 members' email addresses here.  It is presented in two forms to make it easier for you to cut and paste it into your email application.  Not all programs work alike, therefore we offer two versions containing the same contact information in order for you to choose which works best for you.

Angie.Carpenter@co.suffolk.ny.us, Michael.Caracciola@co.suffolk.ny.us, George.Guldi@co.suffolk.ny.us, Fred.Towle@co.suffolk.ny.us, Joseph.Caracappa@co.suffolk.ny.us, Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us, Martin.Haley@co.suffolk.ny.us, Brian.Foley@co.suffolk.ny.us, William.Lindsay@co.suffolk.ny.us,
Ginny.Fields@co.suffolk.ny.us, Cameron.Alden@co.suffolk.ny.us, Andrew.Crecca@co.suffolk.ny.us, Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us, David.Bishop@co.suffolk.ny.us, Maxine.Postal@co.suffolk.ny.us,
Allan.Binder@co.suffolk.ny.us, Paul.Tonna@co.suffolk.ny.us, Jon.Cooper@co.suffolk.ny.us
 

First District - Michael Caracciola - Michael.Caracciola@co.suffolk.ny.us
Second District - George Guldi - George.Guldi@co.suffolk.ny.us
Third District - Fred Towle, Jr. - Fred.Towle@co.suffolk.ny.us
Fourth District - Joseph Caracappa - Joseph.Caracappa@co.suffolk.ny.us
Fifth District - Vivian Fisher - Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us
Sixth District - Martin Haley - Martin.Haley@co.suffolk.ny.us
Seventh District - Brian Foley - Brian.Foley@co.suffolk.ny.us
Eighth District - William Lindsay - William.Lindsay@co.suffolk.ny.us
Ninth District - Ginny Fields - Ginny.Fields@co.suffolk.ny.us
Tenth District - Cameron Alden - Cameron.Alden@co.suffolk.ny.us
Eleventh District - Angie Carpenter - Angie.Carpenter@co.suffolk.ny.us
Twelfth District - Andrew Crecca - Andrew.Crecca@co.suffolk.ny.us
Thirteenth District - Vivian Fisher - Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us
Fourteenth District - David Bishop - David.Bishop@co.suffolk.ny.us
Fifteenth District - Maxine Postal - Maxine.Postal@co.suffolk.ny.us
Sixteenth District - Allan Binder - Allan.Binder@co.suffolk.ny.us
Seventeenth District - Paul Tonna - Paul.Tonna@co.suffolk.ny.us
Eighteenth District - Jon Cooper - Jon.Cooper@co.suffolk.ny.us
 
 

Subject:  Proposal to Ban Smoking Within 50' of Entrances
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 02:54:38 -0400
From: Audrey Silk <nycclash@nycclash.com>
Organization: NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
To: acarpent@suffolk.lib.ny.us
CC:  mcaracci@suffolk.lib.ny.us, George.Guldi@co.suffolk.ny.us, Fred.Towle@co.suffolk.ny.us,
        Joseph.Caracappa@co.suffolk.ny.us, Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us, Martin.Haley@co.suffolk.ny.us,
        Brian.Foley@co.suffolk.ny.us, wlindsay@suffolk.lib.ny.us, Ginny.Fields@co.suffolk.ny.us,
        calden@suffolk.lib.ny.us, Andrew.Crecca@co.suffolk.ny.us, mdandre@suffolk.lib.ny.us,
        dbishop@suffolk.lib.ny.us, mpostal@suffolk.lib.ny.us, abinder@suffolk.lib.ny.us,
        Paul.Tonna@co.suffolk.ny.us, Jon.Cooper@co.suffolk.ny.us
 

Dear Honorable Angie Carpenter and All Members of the Suffolk County Legislature:

Your proposal to extend the ban on smoking within a 50-foot radius of street-level entrances to buildings owned or leased by
the county and all hospitals in Suffolk is nothing more than an intolerant attitude manifesting itself into an abuse of power.

Your own defense in proposing this bill is that people complain.  So what?  Does that give you the right to use your legislative
abilities to invoke tyrannical control over a segment of the people you were elected to represent because somebody is annoyed
for one or two seconds a day?  Everyone is annoyed by something.  No one has the right not to be annoyed. Where does
government draw the line at legislating behaviors that annoy others? Please explain what standard is used to decide one
person's annoyance is more important than another's that a law is needed. In that case, also please explain what annoyance is
not worthy of legislation.  Needless to say, it's all relative and no one person's annoyance should infringe upon the freedom of
another.  Living in a civil society means putting up with annoyances. What you propose is an uncivil action.  Political
correctness is robbing people of their right to be treated equally and with respect.

The June 13th issue of Newsday which reported on your proposal included some very interesting remarks (besides my own).  Suffolk Health Commissioner Clare Bradley said that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen and that there was no "safe” amount of exposure.  Really?  Outdoors? Haven't you ever used what reasoning ability you have to wonder why smokers aren't dropping dead twice or three times as much as they allegedly are if they are constantly exposed to their own secondary
smoke as well as mainstream smoke? Let's not forget that now Ms. Bradley is claiming there is no safe amount OUTDOORS. Her claim is an outright lie.  I can't even say it is an exaggeration because she has no statistics to refer to which she can stretch to her liking.  She made it up, plain and simple.  Are you going to pass a law because the lie fits your personal bias or will you research her claim before deciding?

Representatives of the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society said even brief exposure to secondhand
smoke could trigger asthma in some people.   If this is the case then I demand to know why asthmatics aren't lying all over the street at bus stops.  There have been anecdotes from paramedics who have been called to asthma cases that turned out to be nothing more than hyperventilation.  There have been test studies where allegedly asthmatic subjects were brought into a room where smoking was occurring but which they could not see and they had no reaction whatsoever.  The same subjects were then brought into a room where visible smoking was taking place and several of them had an "attack."  Keep telling the
public that secondary smoke brings on asthma attacks outdoors and you end up with asthmatics responding to a psychological factor rather than a physical one. They see a cigarette and become hysterical, triggering hyperventilation. But that doesn't stop the anti-smokers from making these wildly exaggerated claims and politicians like yourself from using
it to impose your morally self-righteous views.

Marianne Zacharia, director of education and advocacy for the American Lung Association Nassau-Suffolk Chapter, said,
"Every little bit hurts. It is cumulative.” With this lie it's time to take the act of smoking itself into perspective in comparison to
exposure to secondary smoke.  The health organizations themselves claim that it takes anywhere from 30 to 40 years of
smoking before the results of smoking-related illnesses show up in the smoker.  On this, their own scale, it is laughable to claim
that seconds of exposure to smoke outdoors will have any effect on a nonsmoking individual before they reach the age of 120
at the very least!  *THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON.  As a comparative example, some take one aspirin a day as recommended for the heart.  No harm is done. Yet, take a bottle of aspirin in one day and you're off to the emergency room, if not dead.   Using Ms. Zacharia's purposely flawed reasoning and applying it to aspirin, one would end up ill or dead too
taking aspirin over time.  Do not make the arrogant mistake that somehow smoking and being around smoke is the same thing.  It is not.  They are not interchangeable. Again, Ms. Zacharia provides another example of lying to wield power, with your help,
over a group of people.

The statement by Peter Sullivan, the president and chief executive of the Nassau-Suffolk Hospital Council, is the most
offensive. He said, "Anything that reduces smoking is probably worthwhile.” Therein lies the most grotesque aberration of the
principles of this nation.  In other words, according to Mr. Sullivan, it's "worthwhile" to promote oppression of fellow Americans' freedom to choose.  To create restrictions in order to forcibly control and eliminate consenting legal adult behavior in order to reach another's ideal of "appropriate" behavior is the ultimate invasion of my right to engage in that legal behavior. How dare you conspire with demagogues, using the power entrusted to you by the people, for the people and of the people, to try to manipulate my behavior.  Everyone know the risks of smoking.  There's no escaping the messages rammed down our throats as if we hadn't heard them the first time.  I, and millions of others, choose to smoke anyway. Enacting law, essentially abrogating decisions I have the right to make, makes you and your legislative body a fascist regime.  Do not be fooled by the anti-smokers who pretend to speak for all nonsmokers.  They do not.  In fact, 50% of the nonsmoking public are beginning to clearly see the threat to each and every facet of their own individual lives now that smoking bans have reached the outdoors.  Even nonsmokers think it's an affront to personal freedom.  They are becoming more disgusted with your behavior than they are of mine.

There is absolutely no scientific basis on which to ban smoking outdoors.  The health authorities can make any claims they like
regarding outdoor exposure to tobacco smoke but they have not a shred of evidence to support their claims.   There is no
study that has ever been conducted regarding exposure to secondary smoke outdoors and health. It boggles the mind and tests
the limits of  patience when anti-smoking zealots make wild statements that have no footing in reality just to push people around
because they don't like what they do.  And you're going to help them?

What on earth, if not simple maniacal discrimination, are you basing this ban on?  I demand to see studies, not lip service,  that support the assertions of the aforementioned individuals regarding secondary smoke outdoors. If you still uphold the oath of your office, you would demand to see them too before taking any action.

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ...Benjamin Franklin 1759

Sincerely,
Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
(NYC C.L.A.S.H.)
P.O. Box 1036
Brooklyn, New York  11234
http://www.nycclash.com

*Go to  http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html for a chart that
explains exactly how many cigarettes need to be smoked INDOORS to reach
unhealthy exposure levels as defined by government agencies.

DISCLAIMER:  I do not represent or speak for any tobacco company. We
have no affiliations whatsoever.  I receive no funding or donations from
any enterprise.  NYC C.L.A.S.H. is a not-for-profit grassroots
organization defending individual civil liberties.
 

CC:  Newsday
        Suffolk Journal
        Suffolk Life
        Suffolk Times/Review
        Commack Times
        The Long Islander's
        Sag Harbor Express
        Southhampton Press
        The Village Times
        The Port Times Record
        The Village Beacon Record
        The Times of Smithtown, St. James and Nesconset

Subject:  Proposed Smoking Ban
Date:  Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:33:38 -0400
From:  Audrey Silk <nycclash@nycclash.com>
Organization:  NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
To:
             Angie.Carpenter@co.suffolk.ny.us, Michael.Caracciolo@co.suffolk.ny.us,
             Allan.Binder@co.suffolk.ny.us, Fred.Towle@co.suffolk.ny.us, Joseph.Caracappa@co.suffolk.ny.us,
             Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us, Martin.Haley@co.suffolk.ny.us, Brian.Foley@co.suffolk.ny.us,
             William.Lindsay@co.suffolk.ny.us, Ginny.Fields@co.suffolk.ny.us, Cameron.Alden@co.suffolk.ny.us,
             Andrew.Crecca@co.suffolk.ny.us, Michael.D'Andre@co.suffolk.ny.us,
             David.Bishop@co.suffolk.ny.us, Maxine.Postal@co.suffolk.ny.us,
 

Dear Members of the Suffolk County Legislature,

Before you vote on the smoking ban bill sponsored by Legislature Angie Carpenter I want to remind you of the substance of the testimony I provided during the June 26, 2001 hearing.

No public policy should be instituted that is formulated in the absence of proof and reason, on the basis of surmises, hunches or appeals to emotion or intuition.  Public policy regarding tobacco is not exempt from the process of compelling evidence and clear argument that are the hallmarks of legitimate democratic public policy.

You have no compelling evidence.  It is not enough to have agendist health spokespeople stand up and claim, "There is no safe level," in regard to tobacco smoke.  What proof do they offer to support this claim?   Integrity should dictate that more than just an emotional statement would be required before enacting laws that affect at least 25% of the public.

There is NO study that has ever even been conducted to provide proof that tobacco smoke encountered OUTDOORS is a health risk. Every single toxicological expert  unassociated with the emotional smoking debate will tell you that the same standard applies across the board for every chemical in that it is the dose makes the poison.  Repetition of the phrase, "there is no safe level," does not make it any less beholden to scientific standards.  They would like to have you believe that the rules of physics applies to everything else except tobacco smoke. Common sense and lack of compelling evidence in the form of at least epidemiological research should tell you that this is not the case and their repetitive phrase is a ploy to manipulate public and political opinion.

Anything short of proof is nothing but abuse of power to arbitrarily create law and simply be bullies. Ethics and integrity should not be compromised for the sake of politcal correctness.

Nuisance is simply not enough justification for a ban such as this and that is all you have.  Please let your conscience be your guide and the lack of evidence be your map.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
(NYC C.L.A.S.H.)
P.O. Box 1036
Brooklyn, New York 11234
(917) 888-9317

http://www.nycclash.com

CC:  NY Newsday

Subject: "The voices of hatred and intolerance"
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:14:10 -0400
From: Audrey Silk <nycclash@nycclash.com>
Organization: NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
To: Paul.Tonna@co.suffolk.ny.us
CC:
             "Angie.Carpenter@co.suffolk.ny.us" <Angie.Carpenter@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Allan.Binder" <Allan.Binder@co.suffolk.ny.us>, "Vivian.Fisher" <Vivian.Fisher@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "William.Lindsay" <William.Lindsay@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Andrew.Crecca" <Andrew.Crecca@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "David.Bishop" <David.Bishop@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Joseph.Caracappa" <Joseph.Caracappa@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Brian.Foley" <Brian.Foley@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Cameron.Alden" <Cameron.Alden@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Michael.Caracciolo" <Michael.Caracciolo@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Martin.Haley" <Martin.Haley@co.suffolk.ny.us>, "Ginny.Fields" <Ginny.Fields@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Fred.Towle" <Fred.Towle@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Michael.D'Andre" <Michael.D'Andre@co.suffolk.ny.us>,
             "Maxine.Postal" <Maxine.Postal@co.suffolk.ny.us>,

Dear Legislator Tonna,

You say, "Let's begin to drown out the voices of hatred and intolerance by affirming the dignity and worth of all human beings."

It's hatred and intolerance that have led to the dehumanization of adults who smoke cigarettes.

Bill 1496, that seeks to ban smoking within a 50' radious of building entrances begins, as the reason to enact such a law:

"This Legislature finds and determines that human health is seriously threatened by  exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)  and that recent findings by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make clear that ETS, or secondhand smoke, is a human carcinogen responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults."

The EPA report referred to has been invalidated and vacated by the federal court.  It was deemed to be a study that reached a "preconceived conclusion in order to influence public opinion."  It violated scientific standards.  Information was cherry-picked that would support a desired result.  The Congressional Research Service has independantly arrived at the same conclusion.

Why was this study commissioned?  Because of hate and intolerance. Anti-smokers want to do away with cigarettes and will resort to any means possible, including scaring the public into believing they are being harmed by others' smoke, thereby creating ways to forcibly reduce smoking.

Another part of Bill 1496 states:

"This Legislature further finds that primary tobacco use is a major cause of mortality and morbidity, directly causing an estimated 434,000 deaths per year in the United States, more deaths than are caused by the use of any other legal or illegal substance or drug."

What is the purpose of this section when the bill is aimed at "protecting" nonsmokers from secondhand smoke? It is more proof that the ultimate goal is to modify the behavior of adults who use a legal product.  It is not the business of government to aid in forcibly removing a legal choice.

In summary, the hate and intolerance is obvious when lawmakers rely on a report and sustain its credibility when in fact it is null and void.  If a contract was to be voided by a judge who would stand for the holder of that contract demanding that it be enforced?  Why then do you find it acceptable to use a study to create a law that is just as dead as my hypothetical contract? To call it unethical would be putting it nicely.

The hate and intolerance is obvious when wording is included that states smoking is just plain bad when discussing a law that has nothing to do with the health effects on the actual smokers.  It implies that you will do away with smokers, not just secondhand smoke, by enacting such a law.

So I ask you, after enlightening you to the truth behind smoking bans, don't smokers deserve to be included in your call to affirm the dignity and worth of ALL human beings by drowning out the voices of hate and intolerance?

This country is now fighting for freedom.  Freedom is everything this country is about and that outsiders hate enough to commit such acts of terrorism on our own shores.  Why would you support the removal of freedoms of fellow Americans, BY our own citizens, who just happen to use a legal product and which has NOT been proven to be harmful (ESPECIALLY OUTDOORS!!)?

Sincerely,
Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
(NYC C.L.A.S.H.)
P.O. Box 1036
Brooklyn, NY 11234
(917) 888-9317