Ruby Julie "A gal can change her mind, can't she?"
Posted on 03/19/2007 10:22:16 AM PDT by pissant
A day after he implied that Ireland should not follow New York City’s example and pass a ban on smoking in all workplaces, Rudolph Giuliani called Mayor Michael Bloomberg to say that was not what he meant.
Bloomberg said the former mayor told him that he meant that Ireland, which currently has no smoking restrictions, should begin to restrict smoking slowly, rather than all at once.
“He just thought that sometimes you go partways to get there, let people adjust and then go the rest of the way,” Bloomberg said yesterday.
Giuliani said that it made more sense to restrict smoking to certain areas.
"Public licensing laws are more of a means for the "haves" to limit competetion from the "wanna-haves"..." What a crock but thats typical. Licensing laws are the result of the demands of the public for accountability by public business.
Certainly the "haves" in the smoking fight are the Tobacco companies and the bar owners. There is no big money interest pushing anti-smoking ordinances.
"I truly do believe that all smokers want to quit, deep down. That is what I believe, that is my opinion. You can detest my opinion all you want -- feel free!"
Your feeling is not detestable in itself, although I think it's incorrect - I believe people when they tell me their opinion. For instance, it would seem ridiculous of me to suggest that although you *say* you believe that all smokers want to quit, I *know* that you really don't.
The detestable part is your desire to enlist the power of government to assist you in asserting your opinion over those who don't share it.
"I think" is fine. "I think the government ought to" is dangerous.
Remember that there are lots of people out there who equally fervently believe that we ought to pay more taxes, give up firearms, cripple our industry to save the planet, pay yet more taxes to support Cuban-style health care, prohibit people from eating foods the study of the week has declared 'bad,' and so forth. Is there something special about you that your opinion deserves the force of Government behind it and theirs doesn't?
If your opinion is rooted in fact and not fantasy, you don't need Government to enforce it for you. Your own advocacy, perhaps combined with others, can persuade people.
Conversely, if you think you need force to win people over, I suspect that your opinion isn't held very strongly. "People agree with me, and I'll club them over the head until they do" isn't very convincing.
I absolutely enjoyed smoking. But I think I was in a state of denial most of the time. Early in the morning, half asleep and awake, I'd have terrible pangs of guilt and wonder why I was killing myself. Then I'd light up and it would go away.
I am not a reformed Smoker-Nazi. I know the addiction.
Those were you original words.
I truly do believe that all smokers want to quit, deep down. That is what I believe, that is my opinion.
Not the same as your original comment, which was state as fact, not opinion.
Rooty-tooty-Julie-annie is an equal oppurtunity nanny-statist. He wants to ban EVERYTHING.
Remember, comrade, freedom is about authority.
It isn't merely for public health issues that laws trump property rights. Zoning restrictions are an example which has little or nothing to do with public health.
There is no doubt that second hand smoke is bad for one. I can tell the difference in my breathing and eyes after heavy exposure to cigarette smoke. No study is necessary to show me that it is bad for me.
One has to be pretty silly to pretend there is no harm in breathing smoke.
They're practically all empty suits, but expensive suits all the same. Empty suits and $150.00 haircuts.
Absolutely not.........but neither is it a conservative position that smokers and business owners who wish to cater to them have no rights but must justshutupandtakeit...contrary to your position.
You are addressing the wrong person. I was saying there is NO paying going on here. Not that there is.
So some believe. My conservative upbringing taught me to bend over backwards so as to not offend another without cause. So I do not smoke cigars inside or around those whom it bothers.
"There is no big money interest pushing anti-smoking ordinances."
I beg your pardon?
It is a huge industry, not just here, but worldwide.
Ruby Julie "A gal can change her mind, can't she?"
So shoot me.
Old Adolf is giving Big Brother a reach around down in Hell about now.
Rather it is your desire to use any triviality to attempt to undermine him. I expect even more desperation as his grasp on the nomination becomes more firm.
These are laws passed by City Councils and state legislatures which Rudy has had nothing to do with.
This milktoast comment is no clue to crypto-fascism on Rudy's part. Expressing some regard for smokers in allowing them to get used to a change somehow gets twisted by the Rudyphobes as proof of him wanting to be a dictator. How laughable are you boys going to get?
So you equate Representative Government with "mob rule"? Very enlightening.
Courtesy is good in all things. The courtesy of a bar owner letting his patrons know if it is or is not a smoking establishment, for example. Nanny statism is bad news. Trans fats and sugar drinks are the next target for nanny staters. Oh, and the worst of all nanny-state trends is political correctness such as "hate speech" and "hate crimes", of course only enforced against whitey.
Rudy is in the menopause stage, so watch out. ;o)
IF Rudy said that it only goes to show that he does NOT want to ram things down people's throats. But a manifestation of concern for smokers gets transformed into Nazi-like behavior by those who hate the man.
A real dictator would just say "ban it all, ban it now, ban it everywhere and screw the smokers who don't like it".
Most people would not object even to that approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.