Posted on 08/18/2002 10:33:36 PM PDT by kattracks
Absolutely sums up the attitudes of all the anti-(pick your vice)advocates.
I find it particularly interesting that anyone who is opposed to increased tobacco taxes or smoking bans is labelled a tobacco intustry "shill" or smokers' rights "lobbyist." Both words with very negative conotations.
Yet the proponents of these same proposals are called health "advocates" or clean air "activists." Both words conjuring rather positive images.
In my world the proponents of these taxes and bans are more deserving of the terms "shill" and "lobbyist" and all of the negative conotation they come with. These people are paid to LIE to the public and they are paid very well and paid with smoker money from the extortionate taxes smokers pay, from the extortion money stolen from smokers through the Master Settlement Agreement, and from smokers who have been so cowed they are willing to pay for the useless "smoking cessation" products being pushed by the anti-smoker organizations.
These people are PAID to find ways to remove the property rights of private business owners.
These people are PAID to find ways to demonize law abiding taxpaying citizens.
These people are PAID to find ways to extort more money from smokers.
These people are PAID to keep a minority of the population from being recognized as law-abiding, tax-paying, productive members of society.
They are PAID to get the rest of the population to accept smokers as addle-brained drug addicts who should have no say and no rights.
The scary part is - they are succeeding.
That is obvious from the number of FReepers who agree that the government should determine that a private business owner WILL be prohibited from permitting the use of a legal product within his premises.
Note it allows for anonymity, but makes you choose a subject-- so they can route it away from His Majesty and to some remote department or the circular file, no doubt. Let's see..."Travel & Tourism" might be an interesting subject line for out of towners (anonymous in-towners?) to play with-- or "Other" might be good, too. I hate to think he might one day--and we know he will--tell the gullible media that everyone's on his side in this smoker-bashing because he didn't "hear" from any of us.
The hubby read this and said he'd love to SUE that sucker!
He's getting a dose of MAJOR BROOKLYN ATTITUDE.
I wonder how "stupid" he's going to think me when the group of us who used to hit NYC on a monthly basis and drop nearly a grand in a weekend just say NO to the bloominidiot????
NYC can not afford to turn away tourism dollars - this dude needs to get a grip on reality.
Sad, isn't it Gabz............
anonymous of course
"Mayor Bloomingberg is a power hungry control freak. He can take his no smoking in New York City to BoneForkEgypt!"
I've got no problem with folks going to the owners of their favorite establishments to seek the VOLUNTARY change of smoking policy based upon customer request.
While I will not patronize such an establishment, I will support the customers and proprietors that work to do such.
All I want is for the proprietors to have the same right to make a business decision based upon custoner and employee requests to continue to permit smoking. Smoking bans remove that right from the owners, employees, and customers.
Anti-smokers claim they are just looking out for the rights of non-smokers. They are wrong. They are actually stealing the rights of most non-smokers.
Anti-smokers claim they speak for ALL non-smokers, but they don't - and they know it. As soon as a non-smoker says the antis do not speak for them, the antis call them liars regarding their non-smoking status.
Anti-smokers despise the Constitution and prove it every time they open their mouths.
That's how we feel, as well. But the Health Coalition in Maine made the restaurants go completely smoke-free in 1999. If a bar/restaurant sold liquor, they could have their smoking section. So, the bar/restaurants is where we go for our meals.
Under the current Clean Indoor Air Act(CIAA) any and all establishments are permitted to go entirely no-smoking and only bar/taverns are permitted to be all smoking. Any establishment with a restaurant license (with seating over a certain amount) must provide a majority non-smoking section.
The new CIAA prohibits smoking in ANY establishment that permits the public to enter. But it goes beyond that - if you have a business office that doesn't have a walk in clientele, but have empoylees, even if they all smoke - smoking is prohibitted.
The nannies are out of control - but the problem is they are controlling our elected officials.
They are one and the same.
Scary, isn't it????
Lord, who knows. Who really knew ANYthing about BloomingIdiot before he got into office!
Seems everything is coming out now, though......
Money TALKS! And you know how well-funded the ANTI's are!
I was listening for the phrase and was not disappointed. Near the end of the call the nut said "It's for your own good." I don't think Hannity heard it or I believe he would have commented on it.
So what else could be for my own good? If I am unable to get around very well might I not have a two-story house "for my own good?" If I am prone to drink too fast might water be rationed to me "for my own good?" If I drive too fast and get a ticked might my vehicle be taken from me "for my own good?" If I cannot see that well might I be made to stay home "for my own good?" Where does it end?
The correct answer is: It will NEVER end. There will always be some do-gooder or some busybody who will demand that Government make you act according to the way THEY think you should act and have what THEY think you should have.
Eyes
This garbage is never going to end.
Not entirely true. Each CHURCH member was expected to contribute AT LEAST ten percent to the church. Many wealthy members gave more
Bloomberg has a problem more serious than a smoking habit. He is a blindly intolerant man who does not understand freedom, but thinks himself a great progressive. He is like the Puritans of old of whom it was said they opposed bear-bating, not because of the suffering it caused the bear, but because of the pleasure it gave the spectators.
I would sat this just about covers it.
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.