Friday, December 6, 2013

Audrey Silk Speaks Before NYC Council

Listen to Audrey Silk's poignant commentary that took place before the NYC Council this past Wednesday in defense of the act of smoking.

..There are a few quotes that I'd first like to highlight:

In reference to banning vaping on the basis of we don't approve of vaping because it looks like smoking, Audrey responds righteously:

...then we are talking about my freedom of speech.

 Indeed, this has become a 1st Amendment issue.

....and in response to the it's for the children argument,  Audrey responds:

Adults have rights too!

True, but only in a democratic republic do such rights exist (sarcasm intended).

This is the remainder of what Audrey had to say at the cut off point. This is Audrey at her best:

You’ll protest you’re different. That smoking is a health issue. Bullshit. You’re not only no different, you’re worse. No one invites being shot or stabbed. No one. Unlicensed guns – surely also a “health” issue -- are illegal. Cigarettes are legal and many choose that pleasure over personal risk.

Then again, in the case of e-cigs it isn’t even a health issue. With your “it hasn’t been proven not to be harmful” you’re practicing asserting a pink elephant is in the room and then demanding that we prove it isn’t or else we lock you up! In science you have to prove to me that the pink elephant is there. Especially when you’ve moved from your proper role of advisor into an impediment of freedom of movement – the choice to smoke or not smoke based on that advice.

I believe nothing other than that this hearing is a sham. A theatrical production put on for the appearance of democracy and the opposition is nothing more than pawns for the show. With no regard your notice goes out on the eve of a 4 day holiday when many leave town, leaving many only two days to prepare. You offered no means by which to submit testimony by mail, freezing those who work for a living out of the debate, unlike the proponents who are here on their organization’s paid clock.

You already know this is a done deal. So I’m not here to plead with you. I’m here to have it on record what I think of you and have always asserted about the anti-smoker movement. That by cartoonishly going after e-cigarettes because they LOOK like a cigarette proves that all the bans have nothing to do with “protecting others” – a role that you can argue is the government’s – and all to do with those in position of power forcing people to comply with their views and silence dissent (censor smoking or anything that looks like it) – a role that can only be argued is the government’s in a non-democratic country.

..Wise words from a natural born leader!


  1. I have just watched Audrey S at the hearing. She makes her points really well. I particularly liked the idea that, if lighting a cigarettes 'sends the wrong message to children', then your right to freedom of speech is being compromised.

    I wanted to leave a message as you did, but I could not find a way. Do you have to be 'a friend' to do so? Anyway, there was a commenter who, well-meaning though he might be, does not seem to understand the concept of risk. Here is what he said:
    Mike Chayne Can I say somthing/ask something? I love smoking and CLASH and wish i could smoke everywhere and totally support fighting all the laws. But as far as these e-cigs are concerned, you couldn't pay me to smoke them! They are so new and we have no idea if they are safe yet and what the long term effects are yet. We won't know for 10 or twenty years. I just hope REAL smokers rights don't get lost in these arguments.
    He confuses the vague possibility of adverse effects with the risk of such effects actually occurring. At the moment, the risk of adverse effects is zero since there is nothing about the ecig machine which might reasonably be expected to be a matter of concern, nor is the juice known to be harmful. Even in ten years time, this would be true unless some harmful effect had been recorded. At that point, the risk could be evaluated and numbers put on the risk. Until then, there is no known risk.
    Tobacco Control use this lack of understanding of risk shamelessly. What is the risk from SHS? TC would say "25% more ..... " But the important question then is "25% more than what?" That is the question that they avoid like the plague. 25% more than almost nothing is still almost nothing.

    1. "I wanted to leave a message as you did, but I could not find a way. Do you have to be 'a friend' to do so?"

      Junican- No, you just have to join the group:-)

    2. "25% more than almost nothing is still almost nothing. "

      True. That notion pertains to just about every substance known to man, EXCEPT for tobacco:-)