Subject: E-mail exchange with State Sen. Kathy Sheran

To: Sheila Kromer
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 5:35 PM
Subject: E-mail exchange with State Sen. Kathy Sheran
Sheila,

Thought you might like to see another example of what we're up against. Following is an email I sent to state senator Kathy Sheran (among others) followed by her response. Feel free to put this up at freedomtoact.com if you like. (I would prefer that my e-mail address not be posted)


Dear Senator,I understand amendments have been proposed for the FTBA and I think it is absolutely imperative that the smoking ban be relaxed if not repealed altogether.The purpose of this ban was supposedly to protect people from the affects of SHS, a premise that is based on some extremely questionable (to say the least) "science".Supposing it is actually "dangerous", the unintended consequences of this paternalistic legislation seems to be far more harmful. Hospitality venues across the state are cutting the hours of and laying off the workers this law is supposed to be helping. Seems to me that canceling the health insurance and calling the kids home from college so you can afford to put some food on the table is an extremely high price to pay for some dubious protection that the vast majority of these employees and many, now former employees, didn't want in the first place.I would certainly appreciate a response with your vie ws on this matter.

Regards,
(My name and address)

And here is her response:

The scientific community has come to agreement on the dangers of second hand smoke...there are efforts by the tobacco companies to confuse the public with bias research but those studies have been examined and found to be flawed.
The public has been surveyed statewide...76% are very supportive of this legislation that protects the rights of smokers to smoke...and protects the non smoker from the hazards of anothers choice.I do not know of ammendments...but will not support any action to weaken this law...only to strenghten it if necessary. There cannot be a justification for allowing a public health hazard to continue....

(There was no opening or closing in her response. It began and ended just as shown).

This is the sort of blind faith we will be dealing with in trying to amend or, better yet, repeal this ridiculous legislation. Her first two paragraphs are the standard, recycled dogma of anti-tobacco with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Regards