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.
A privately owned dining establishment is licenses by the PUBLIC and open to the PUBLIC. Ownership does not allow you to do anything you wish as you seem to believe.
In order to have access by the PUBLIC an owner must abide by the laws created by the PUBLIC.
Yes they lived in a cave. Dad was Alley Oop and Granddad was Oog.
I hope it didn't start a coughing fit.
You appear to be willing to force others to breathe smoke that they clearly do not want to do. These bans are POPULAR or they would not be succeeding EVERYWHERE. When I was young people did not believe they could or should smoke everywhere. They didn't smoke in Church, at the family table, some women did not even smoke around other people. But I was raised in a small town.
And no I was speaking of the anti-smoking industry which would go out of business if people did not smoke.
Smoking is a behavior which is subject to regulation by law just like all other behaviors. That is a fact of life and not socialism or fascism or tyranny anymore than not allowing public nudity is..
yawn.
"If it were up to me, there would be no such thing and private companies would run them..." that is another topic but there would be no more freedom for those companies to set smoking policy than there is for airlines or trains today.
It is unfortunate that people cannot go for more than a couple of hours without smoking and be able to enjoy a meal out.
That is not a lot of money. And putting it on the ballot only allows the people to express their opinion. That opinion will be over two to one in favor imho.
Those are not money interests in the sense that they are pushing these policies to MAKE more money as Tobacco is a Money Interest. Those are people who are willing to USE money to push their point of view which is mainly HEALTH interests or ideological.
Having access to money to spread a point of view or policy is not the same as a Money Interest as it is traditionally spoken of.
They can! Only about 20% of Americans smoke. Therefore, there are several successful restaurants who choose to ban smoking on their premesis even in states that allow restaurants to make their own smoking policy. There are also successful establishments that choose to cater to the smoking/don't mind the smoke crowd.
Doing things my way, smokers, non-smokers, people who don't care, and business owners all benefit. Doing it your way, the only people who benefit are non-smokers. Please explain why your way is more logical.
I just finished reading the entire thread and everyone's comments. Let me see if I got this all straight (it's all a little confusing when you combine two notoriously volatile subjects like Rudy and smoke Nazis on FR). Please help me out if I got any of your various positions wrong:
* TitansAFC, pissant, EternalVigilance and Charles are anti-Rudy, anti-nanny state and want everyone here to think that Rudy is a nanny stater so they will not support him and support their candidate instead
* I am leaning towards Rudy, anti nanny state, and know for a fact that Rudy is not a nannystater
* justshutupandtakeit is pro-Rudy, pro nanny state and thinks that even if Rudy were a nanny stater it would benefit him since it is politically beneficial to discriminate against smokers
* flashbunny is pro-Rudy, anti nanny state, but is not quite sure if Rudy is a nanny stater or not
* EnquiringMind is neither pro nor anti Rudy, and is so pro nanny state she will actually go out of her way to vote for whichever candidate promises to straighten her out and coerce her to do the right thing for her own good
* Rita is not even aware there is an election for POTUS next year, but if she was, she would throw her support behind any candidate who promises her that she won't have to go through the inconvenience of checking whether a restaurant is smoking or non-smoking before she makes her dinner plans
* Gabz, eXe, Jeep, metesky, newguy357, TigersEye; MadameDufarge are undecided voters, anti nanny state, will hopefully trust me when I tell them that Rudy isn't a nanny stater and are trying their best to inform justshutupandtakeit who desperately needs a crash course in Nanny State politics so he can understand it better
* dirtboy is anti-Rudy and pro Duncan Hunter, anti nanny state but even he doesn't believe AFC and pissant's propaganda and will attempt to win over Freepers to Duncan Hunter with real issues and without bogus cheap shots
Do I have it all straight? If there are any inaccuracies as far as people's position please let me know and I will straighten it out.
Representative government can pass laws to control behavior. Sometimes it passes laws we like sometimes it passes laws we don't like. I don't like speed limits below 75 so what? Unless I or you can convince the voters to stop electing people to pass laws we don't like they will continue to be passed. That is the logic of representative government.
Yes I stopped beating my wife.
oh, come on it's not meant to be a loaded question...
But while we're having fun, you could turn it around and say "Have you quit being a member of al Qaeda yet?" I understand your point, if someone says yes they are confirming they were a terrorist at one point and if they say no they admit they are a terrorist. It's a no win situation.
Seriously, I'm just trying to straighten this all out. You have to admit that it gets a little confusing when people are debating 2 different issues at the same time. Some are pro issue A but anti issue B, others are vice versa and others agree with A but not B and some don't know anything about A or B and...you get the point.
I was responding to your comment in regard to public transit.......not private business establishments.
Am I right that you are still undecided about POTUS Gabz?
I don't disagree with that statement BTW. That's a good point. But do you agree with most of us that our nation is a Republic? A Democracy is 11 hyenas and a lamb arguing about what's for dinner.
Actually my position is the complete opposite, and if you had been paying attention to my posts over the years you would realize this.
You however appear to be willing to force private businesses to cater to your wishes, even if they are a business you would never patronize.........such as a cigar bar. A business set up for a specific clientele, and you have no qualms about shutting them down.
When I was young people did not believe they could or should smoke everywhere. They didn't smoke in Church, at the family table, some women did not even smoke around other people. But I was raised in a small town.
Same with me, and I grew up in New York City, hardly a small town.
I call BS on that. The RWJF holds 80,000,000 shares of Johnson & Johnson stock, the more nicotine replacement drugs J&J sells, the more money RWJF has to hand out to those pushing smoking bans. Groups that don't get the RWJF preferred legislation passed lose funding from them. If that isn't a money interest, I don't know what constitutes one.
You won't get an argument from me, you have my position correct. I can't speak for anyone else, but you seem to have sumed it all up well.
"You however appear to be willing to force private businesses to cater to your wishes, even if they are a business you would never patronize.........such as a cigar bar." I have never voted to ban smoking, signed a petition, contributed money or spoken out in public in favor. I smoke a cigar every so often and have been to cigar bars. These policies are not my work but I clearly understand WHY people are demanding them. The excuses and rationalizations which you must go through as to why they are popular are only that.
In NYC smoking was allowed in MOVIE theaters first time I went there in the 60s.
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.