47° Good Morning
47° Good Morning

Newsday letters to the editor Monday, April 24, 2017

White House press secretary Sean Spicer speaks during

White House press secretary Sean Spicer speaks during the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, Monday, March 13, 2017. Credit: AP

White House must grasp its influence

I’m now calm enough about White House spokesman Sean Spicer’s hideous statement about Adolf Hitler and chemical weapons to say this: It really doesn’t matter what he means or what the president means [“Spicer is sorry for Hitler gaffe,” News, April 12]. Spicer is speaking for the man who holds the most sheer, raw power in the world. This world hears their words.

These people do not have the luxury of restating, nor should they. They should think before they say anything more complex than good morning, because their words can be lethal. I truly do not believe they understand that concept.

At this point, with really bad actors out there listening to what these people say, I almost feel as if being offended is a luxury I can’t afford. Yes, I’m offended — but more important, I’m afraid for us all.

Melanie Weiss, South Huntington

State should restrict e-cigarettes

As a volunteer for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, I was appalled to learn that the State Senate, Assembly and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo caved on a bid to restrict e-cigarettes [“Senate OKs budget,” News, April 10].

An agreement to include e-cigarettes in the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act was mysteriously dropped from the final state budget. This would have prohibited their use where smoking is already prohibited.

According to the U.S. surgeon general, e-cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among children. The surgeon general also reported that nicotine use in any form, including e-cigarettes, is unsafe for young people. Meanwhile, use of electronic cigarettes by high school students soared to 20.6 percent in 2016.

Clearly our kids are being targeted by e-cigarette companies.

Christy M. Manso, Massapequa

Taxpayers shouldn’t fund this electricity

I’m concerned about the addition of electric vehicle charging stations [“Upping the voltage,” News, April 10].

Why is taxpayer money used for something that will benefit only a handful of people? Also, who will pay for the electricity consumed at these stations?

Most people who buy electric vehicles are fairly well off. These vehicles are usually used as second cars due to their short range, and have relatively high purchase prices. People who drive gas-powered cars are already contributing to state and local governments through high gasoline taxes.

Besides the cost of constructing these stations, who is paying for the land they occupy, and who will pay to maintain them? Who will be liable if someone gets injured while using one of these stations?

Taxpayers certainly should not have to provide free electricity. If electric vehicles are so great, then tack a fee to their purchase price to cover the cost of these stations.

Barry Schwartz, East Meadow

Do more to stop overdose deaths

After reading “City overdose deaths up nearly 40%” [News, April 7], I was discouraged. The rise in drug overdose deaths in 2016 was fueled overwhelmingly by heroin and fentanyl cases, creating what one city official called a public health crisis.

As a social work master’s student at LIU Post, concentrating on substance abuse and alcoholism, I must respond to the issue of addiction. People still do not understand the severity of this disease.

Our society needs to educate people on substance abuse. To prevent fatal overdoses, we need to implement programs as early as middle school, mandate treatment rather than jail time, and further restrict prescription drugs.

Marialaina Taldi, Merrick

Look at Donald Trump from all angles

In response to the reader who characterized President Donald Trump as the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, I firmly believe we should all look at Trump from all angles [“Trump is combo of Reagan and Wayne,” Letters, April 14].

He is an enigma, if nothing else. The letter writer had some very clear and precise adjectives to describe how he feels about our president: clear, strong, engaged, decisive, resolute and competent.

My list includes scheming and destructive. Isn’t it amazing how two people can view another human so differently?

Judith Kelsey, Merrick


We're revamping our Comments section. Learn more and share your input.