Giuliani backtracks on smoking comment (smoke Nazi)

TCM ^ | 9/19/03 | staff

[justshutupandtakeit]

Our nation is a representative democracy not a direct democracy. And these laws result from this representation not direct democracy. Unless there is some town meeting in Mass. which has passed such laws that is.

There is nothing unconstitutional about them and no right is being infringed which says nothing about their wisdom. But the public is convinced that smoking is not healthy and it is suporting efforts to control it more. That may be unacceptable to some but that is the reality and it is pretty hard to change that well-justified belief. The well-known and craven campaign of lies by the tobacco industry does not help counter the anti-smokers either.

[Gabz]

I can't see an argument at all with what you have said, except of course from the nanny staters who believe ALL establishments should be catering to their wishes.

When I was battling the smoker ban in Delaware in 2002 there was a person who testified about how much more non-smokers would be frequenting bars and restaurants. In 2003, after the ban had gone into effect, when we were battling to again return the exemption for bars this person once again testified how more non-smokers would frequent the bars. When those of us who supported the exemptions lost, I offerred to buy this person a drink as a gesture of not being a sore loser. The person looked at me and said "Thanks, but no thanks, I don't go to bars."

It wasn't the first time it had been said, but it was the one that stuck out most in my mind........people who do not frequent certain types of establishments seem to have this idea they should still be able to dictate the clientele of those establishments.

[metesky]

I'm not an undecided voter. I caught on to Rudy's fascist tentencies when he was US attorney. He made several statements during the course of his early career that set me quite aback. I'd never vote for Rudy in the Republican primary and doubt I'd be able to hold my nose long enough to vote for Rudy in the general elections.

JMO.

[Gabz]

We were still smoking in movie theaters in the 70s in NYC.......

You have been speaking in favor of bans very pubicly just on this thread (and others, I might add) so please do not try to tell me you are not a gung ho supporter regardless of your "every so often cigar."

[metesky]

The point EnquiringMind is trying to make is that one should be ashamed to have "too much" experience in bars.

Me, I've been drinking in bars, saloons, gin mills, roadhouses, billiard halls and taverns of every size, shape, decor and social class you could think of since I was fifteen years old, which is more than 58 years ago. I'd be ashamed if I couldn't be parachuted down anywhere in America, walk into the nearest watering hole and start up a random conversation with the first person dumb enough to make eye contact.

Usually it only takes me about fifteen to twenty minutes to start laying everyone's problems at the feet of gub'mint and get a little minnie bitching session going.

[Gabz]

You're my kinda guy........thankfully I'm married to one just the same :)

[EnquiringMind]

* 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

I am unabashedly pro Rudy, anti nanny state, but admit that nonsmoking restaurants helped me early on when I first quit. Why I received so much grief over that statement is beyond me. To clarify, I have an OPINION that all smokers really want to quit, and formed that opinion by being around smokers and listening to them. The only smokers I have ever known to claim they do not want to quit are those on Free Republic.

[jmc813]

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?

But you do seem to like the smoking ban. We're not arguing whether or not a state can legally do so, we're arguing if it's the right thing to do.

[TigersEye]

LOL In the interests of helping you with your list and with your confusion (which is considerable but far from outstanding) I will attempt to answer your survey.

* 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

First of all; I like the company, patriots and Constitutionalists all. But I'm not undecided; Duncan Hunter is exactly the man I'm looking for in a President. I am definitely anti-nanny state and as a conservative and a Constitutionalist see that as a given.

I am not undecided on Rudy Toot either. You must have missed my post where I said I didn't need to know anymore about him. He's a gun grabber. I will never vote for a gun grabber. He is pro baby-butchery. I will never vote for a baby killer. In Rudy's own words "My positions are very similar to Hillary's."

Finally; justshutupandtakeit is insane. As much as I detest the current usage of psychotropic drugs to treat every uncomfortable emotion that pops up he/she is in desperate need of some adjustment, up or down, in their meds. I wouldn't waste my time trying to inform justshutupandtakeit. And unless EnquiringMind is 13 yrs old or less she could benefit greatly from a SEA KELP regimen herself (which can't be taken while she's on the DADDY PLEASE program.)

I hope that helps. ;^)

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am not a believer in the "nanny state". Society does have the right and power to control certain behaviors even involving legal substances. Businesses have NEVER had the right to do anything they wish even in our early past. Private ownership of a business does not remove it from the control of the licensing authorities as so many here seem to believe.

[philman_36]

Those are people who are willing to USE money to push their point of view which is mainly HEALTH interests or ideological.
Color me impressed that you even admitted such a thing as an ideological aspect exists. I'll go with the ideological aspect. If it were truly a HEALTH interest then funding efforts to combat the purported negative effects of smoking would be the goal. Do you see the difference?
And I'll have to agree with Gabz. There is a LOT of side money being made off of tobacco control.
Don't ya just love the sound of that?

[justshutupandtakeit]

These people are not motivated by financial concerns but ideological and health concerns. They are sincere in these beliefs which makes them a much bigger threat than one merely motivated by money.

I know you don't like them but the truth is the truth. Not all interests are monetary.

[philman_36]

Our nation is a representative democracy not a direct democracy.
Our nation is a Constitutional Republic. No wonder you're so screwed up in your way of thinking.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I know singers who will not perform in smokey bars or lounges because of the negative impact on their voices and lungs. Though I do not like to be around cigarette smoke I have never argued smoking should be banned in bars which I rarely frequent in any case.

However, I do not believe that the only reason smokers go to bars or restaurants is to smoke or that there is any long-lasting impact on either if there is a state wide ban.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently it doesn't take much to impress you.

Obviously the best way to combat the health effects of smoking is to eliminate, restrict and reduce it. Seems like the antis have taken the most productive approach.

[philman_36]

The point EnquiringMind is trying to make is that one should be ashamed to have "too much" experience in bars.
I'm not generally ashamed at all of my past bar experience. It's those few "too much" experiences of my past that trouble me the most now. LOL A bar in Korea and Ouzo and a couple of Phillipine bar instances come to mind.
I've mellowed out considerably during the intervening years.

...the first person dumb enough to make eye contact.
So that was YOU! LOL (just kidding)

[TigersEye]

Obviously the best way to combat the health effects of smoking is to eliminate, restrict and reduce it.

Inherent in this statement is your conviction that it is a communal responsibility not a personal responsibility to combat the negative health effects of personal behaviors. You also endorse the incremental approach to total control.

[philman_36]

Obviously the best way to combat the health effects of smoking is to eliminate, restrict and reduce it.
You like using that word. Once again you're trying to persuade me, not inform me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't like being subjected to the byproducts of an obsession. If smokers could control the habit and limit themselves there would never have been a drive to control it. But obsessively lighting up every ten or fifteen minutes makes breathing difficult for everyone else.

While I have never argued for bans I do not consider them that significant either way or the other. In some cases they are good. But this rates waaay down the scale of what is important. Second hand smoke is merely a nuisance to me not a health threat like it is with some.

In my own domicile I do not smoke cigars inside and built a smoking porch for my friends who smoke cigarettes. One of my sons had asthma and we had to be very careful with him when he was young.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The republic is operated through democratic representation. There is no contradiction.