Dear Councilman Michels,
The night you were a guest on the radio show on WEVD I was the caller, Audrey. I am also the founder of NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (NYC C.L.A.S.H.).
Your behavior was abhorrent. Not only did you display a holier than thou image by repeatedly telling those who smoke, "I'll pray for you," but your trickery and deceit was quite evident. It is obvious that you depend on the public's lack of intelligence and/or willingness to simply believe what they hear without conducting any personal investigations in order to win the debate. Anyone with an ounce of intellect saw right through your tricks. To turn the debate from the issue of secondhand smoke (SHS) into an attack on the personal choice to smoke was devious but transparent. More incredible was using our choice to smoke to attack our credibility when quoting from SHS studies. Those smart enough understood that there was no "credibility" issue to question since we were not making things up out of thin air towards our liking, such as you do, but that we were quoting studies. Why did you always feel the need to turn the debate towards smoking, rather than address the SHS issue, everytime someone brought up actual studies? What were you afraid of Mr. Michels?
You, and all those who say there are 3000 deaths attributed to SHS are lying. That's right, outright lying. Show me one death certificate or one body where SHS was the contributing factor to his/her death. Even further, please explain your use of numbers from the EPA study that was invalidated and vacated by a federal court judge and further denounced by the Congressional Research Service.
As I said, many people saw right through your tricks. And for the ones that don't I intend to see that they do, starting with the residents of your district. Originally, it was very interesting to me that you are willing to ignore the wishes of at least 1/3 of your constituents. But then I looked into those who reside in your district. It appears it is largely minority areas and that makes it very likely that more than 1/3 of your constituents smoke as it's been reported that minorities smoke more. There's a good chance you are ignoring half of the people you were elected to serve. I'm sure they'd be equally interested to hear that you want to disenfranchise them based on lies that you are using to further your own personal biases. I don't think they'd be happy to learn that you are using further smoking bans to force them into giving up a habit. Additionally, your arguments sound an awful lot like another form of discrimination. Your veiled attacks on Linda Stewart, ie. "I can tell by your voice you're a smoker," is nothing more than an attempt at stigmatization. That is a form of promoting discrimination. Replace the word "smoker" with "black" and you will see how that plays out.
I don't know if you were trying to lay some ridiculous trap by commenting several times on your poor NINETY-ONE year old aunt who is now suffering from lung cancer. In case you weren't and you are dense enough to believe that you are making some sort of valid point by bringing that up, may I point out that the average life expectancy for women is in the mid 70s. Using your convoluted logic I could say how you have now proved that smoking is *good* for a person since your smoking aunt has survived approximately 15 years past the average life expectancy. But I don't stoop as low as you do. Nor do I need to. The case against there being any harm from SHS is full of facts whereas your case is built on made up numbers and studies that most epidemiologists would throw out as insignificant if it were anything other than SHS at the heart of the matter. Your beloved EPA study showed a relative risk of harm at 1.16. The CDC reports there is a relative risk of lung cancer from milk of 1.62. When will you ban milk, Mr. Michels? If you are willing to use such statistically insignificant relative risks to support a ban on smoking then why not a ban on milk? Think of the children. Oh, you never heard of this? Could be because they concluded the result of 1.62 was too small to be considered significant and dismissed it. Imagine that. A higher relative risk than SHS but, using their own standards of what presents a strong risk, threw it out.
Your credibility is particulary zero when you *now* exempt bars and bingo halls, etc. and claim that you are happy with the proposal as is. I'd bet dollars to donuts you said the same thing when the NYC Clean Air Act was first enacted. I'm sure you assured everyone that you wouldn't go further. If we allow you to take the Act to this next step you will already be planning on how to finally implement no smoking laws on those places that you are now exempting.
What amazes me most is the fact that people throughout the world look upon NYC as the crossroads of the world (it's not just Times Square) yet you are willing to jeopardize revenue from tourists and businesses who come from countries where they smoke freely. You are tarnishing the image of the city, which I love, and creating an intolerant image in place of a fun loving city with so much to offer.
As Linda Stewart rightly stated, 95% of the city's restaurants are already smoke-free. What sanctimonious personality defect is pushing you to regulate the other 5%. Please don't insult my intelligence by responding that they can allow smoking if they have a separate room. We both know most will not be able to afford reconstruction and we both know that you are counting on that fact.
No one elected you G*d. You are merely an elected official. If you are the religious man that I think you are then you know it is not your place to decide what choices people should make or manipulate them to modify their behavior. With your current attitude, should you pray for me, I'll likely end up dead due to that alone because of your deceitful soul. You can't hide that from the powers that be. I'm sure there are many activities and life-style choices you take part in that are not particularly "healthy." It is nobody's business but your own and you should be outraged if someone were to come along and tell you which one of those you must stop "for your own good." Furthermore, in this vein, you choose Jeffrey Wigand as your hero. If this is who you choose to lie down with, then I am certainly doomed to death should you pray for me. I invite you to read up on your "hero" at http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/insider.htm And please, it will do no good to knock the source of this information. As I and the other callers did not make up the studies we quoted, neither does FORCES make up the information regarding Mr. Wigand.
You certainly have not heard the last from me and, I assure you, neither will the residents of District 7.
Audrey Silk
Brooklyn, NY
Founder: NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
http://www.nycclash.com