[Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage

Mo Hendrickson hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
Fri Aug 14 10:18:09 PDT 2009


I will write more later about gay marriage.  But I need to say this
now.  When I wrote that your use of the word Pal hurt me...I don't
think I really expected an apology from you.  But there was a small
part of me that hoped that you would have the human decency not to make
some snide comment about how not sorry you are.  I was also makybe
hoping you would be able to carry on a civil discourse about this
topic, but apparently you won't even pretend.   There are ways of
disagreeing with other people without belittling and hurting people in
the process.  

I also find it interesting that you did not give the full definitions of pal and partner.  

From dictionary.com

pal  /pæl/   Show Spelled Pronunciation  [pal]   Show IPA   noun, verb, palled, pal⋅ling. Informal.Use pal in a Sentence –noun   1. a very close, intimate friend; comrade; chum.     2. an accomplice.    –verb (used without object)   3. to associate as comrades or chums: to pal around with the kid next door. 
part⋅ner  /ˈpɑrtnər/   Show Spelled Pronunciation  [pahrt-ner]   Show IPA    Use partner in a Sentence –noun   1. a person who shares or is associated with another in some action or endeavor; sharer; associate.     2. Law.   a. a
person associated with another or others as a principal or a
contributor of capital in a business or a joint venture, usually
sharing its risks and profits.     b.  special partner.         3.  silent partner.      4. a husband or a wife; spouse.     5. either of two people who dance together: my favorite partner in the waltz.      6. a player on the same side or team as another: My tennis partner was an excellent player.      7. partners, Nautical. a framework of timber round a hole in a ship's deck, to support a mast, capstan, pump, etc.
Nautical
references aside, one of the definitions of partner is spouse.  The
additional definitions of pal are chum and comrade.  I don't think it
would be too much of a leap for me to say that you see my relationship
as a friendship, not as a consensual loving partnership.  I have plenty
of "pals" but only one partner.  But I think you probably knew all of
this.  

-Mo 

From: jampot at roadrunner.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:14:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage










Unfortunately, my question was not answered in even 
the most oblique fashion. What I asked was "Why don't you explain to me all 
the myriad ways in which you being able to marry your partner is a benefit 
to me and/or society?" What you replied with was the standard song we have all 
become so familiar with. To paraphrase: "I want it because I perceive it as good 
for me." and, because I thinks it's "fair." We've heard this all before and 
I am not going to respond at that level because to do so is to make this into 
some sort of a personnel argument regarding your lifestyle (which I have no 
interest in) rather than a discussion of the merits of changing a policy that 
has worked, sometimes imperfectly I'll be the first to admit, for 
centuries.
 
Next order of biz, I suppose, is me making some sort 
massively insincere apology for my choice of noun to refer to your 
"partner." Let's face it, we all know that I would not be sorry in the 
least so I won't even pretend for the sake of civil discourse.  I'm 
glad that you choose to believe that I'm a "smart man." You would not need to 
search very hard to find venomous and vociferous disagreement. Either 
way, I do know what the words I choose to use mean,
 
from dictionary.com
 
Pal  1. a very close, 
intimate friend.
 
Partner  1. a person 
who shares or is associated with another in some action or 
endeavor.
 
and now you do too. Take from this what you 
will.
 
respectfully,
g

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  keely emerinemix 
  
  To: Mo Hendrickson ; lockshop at pull.twcbc.com 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:24 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why I Support 
  Gay Marriage
  
Mo, thanks for a very important contribution to the debate 
  surrounding same-sex marriage.  I appreciate your not only taking the 
  time to answer Gary, but the reasonableness with which you answer his 
  questions.  This, and many other reasons, are why I'm blessed by God to 
  call you and your partner -- "pal" IS utterly offensive -- my dear 
  friends.

Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com





  
  From: hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
To: 
  lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Date: 
  Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:02:57 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: 
  [Vision2020] Why I Support Gay Marriage


  

  

  

  

  
  This is my long overdue response to Gary's questions from the end of 
  July.  As we all know life happens and sometimes things fall through the 
  cracks, that is what happened to my response.  With Palouse Pride this 
  Saturday and the Washington State Referendum 71 likely to be on the ballot in 
  November, I figured it was time to give my point of view.  

First 
  I want to thank Gary for asking his questions.  I had honestly not done a 
  whole lot of research into the effects of restricting marriage and found that 
  I am now better equipped to handle questions when they come my way.  I am 
  by no means an expert but I want to share what I have found and speak from my 
  own experience.  

The first thing I am going to address is the 
  notion that "most states allow pretty much all accomodation to homosexual 
  couples as they do hetro except the title."  Oh if this were even close 
  to the truth I would be a much happier person.  Lets take Idaho as an 
  example.  Same-sex couples in Idaho are pretty much considered roommates 
  under the law.  There is no legal protection granted to them by the 
  state.  A married couple in Idaho can file joint taxes, when a child is 
  born both people in the couple are legally that child's parent even if sperm 
  donation was used, they can make medical and financial decisions for the other 
  person without drawing up legal paperwork...the list could go on and on.  
  A same sex couple enjoys none of these or any other rights of marriage in 
  Idaho.  

Yes we can go to a lawyer and have wills and powers of 
  attorney drawn up, but that does not make things equal.  Say my partner 
  and I where traveling out of state we are in an accident and one of us is 
  unable to consent to medical care.  I pull out my power of attorney 
  hoping that the hospital will accept it and grant me the power to make the 
  decisions. If they wanted they could look right past me and call my partners 
  family to make those decisions.  In my case we would probably be on the 
  same page as to care, but that is not always the case.  If a straight 
  married couple had the same thing occur the hospital would not ask them to 
  produce their marriage license before allowing the other to make those 
  decisions.  There are plenty of places across this country that still 
  deny partners the right to visit each other in the hospital, simply on the 
  basis that they are not a "family" member.  Tell me how this is 
  right?  Tell me how this makes our country stronger, denying the right to 
  see a loved one?  To me this is wrong on so many levels.  

I 
  know I may not be answering your questions directly but I am trying to cover a 
  great deal of information.  You asked about the major tangible benefits 
  for my partner and I.  First and the most present for my partner and I is 
  medical benefits.  I am currently covered by her plan, she works for a 
  company that has generously paid for our benefits.  She is back in school 
  and will be leaving her job in the next couple of years.  She will be 
  without health insurance because I cannot carry her on my insurance through 
  the University.  The insurance at UI may not be the best around but it is 
  better than nothing.  Along with health care if one of us were to get 
  sick or injured and had to take time off, the other could not take family 
  medical leave to care for the other person.  A married couple is covered 
  under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) which protects a workers job 
  with unpaid time off to care for a sick family member.  We are not 
  married so we are not covered. 

Second major tangible benefit, parental 
  rights of each parent.  I am unable to carry children, so when we start a 
  family it will be my partner who carries the child.  When our children 
  are born, the sperm donor will have more rights to my child than I will.  
  We will need to go through the process of adoption so that i can be the legal 
  parent of the child.  So not only do we need to go through the expense of 
  pregnancy, we will have the added expense of legalizing my rights with my 
  child.  If my partner were to die before the process was over I could be 
  denied custody of my child.  

I really could go on and I intended 
  this to be more empirical and less emotive, but alas it is something that is 
  dear to my heart and would greatly improve the lives of millions of 
  Americans.  If you want empirical data I will gladly share the volumes of 
  data that I found.  But for now I will hold onto it...this email is 
  getting long and my lunch break is almost over.  

There is one 
  final thing that I would like to say.  Unfortunately I did not save the 
  email in which you wrote this, Gary, and I don't have time to look it up in 
  the archives, but in subsequent emails you referred to my partner as my 
  "pal."  I am not going to fly off the handle and call you all sorts of 
  nasty names, but I will say this.  That one little word hurt me.  I 
  don't think I am being overly sensitive to this either.  We have been 
  together for over six and a half years, she is not my pal, she is my 
  partner.  We share everything, good and bad, we have seen each other 
  through some really hard times and we have celebrated with each other in the 
  joyous times.  You are a smart man, you know the impact your words have 
  on people.  I wanted to let you know that this time they cut a little too 
  deep.  I may not agree with most of what you write on the vision, but I 
  do respect you.  I ask that you do the same for me.  

Ok, now 
  it really is time to finish my lunch.

-Mo







  
  From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: hend5953 at vandals.uidaho.edu
CC: 
  vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
Date: Fri, 24 
  Jul 2009 15:26:29 -0700


  

  Since I've done that one before Mo, why not just for fun 
  try a different approach. Why don't you explain to me all the myriad ways 
  in which you being able to marry your partner is a benefit to me and/or 
  society? Explain how it will be good for children (mine or yours, assuming you 
  have any), how it will strenghten families, and how it won't cause large 
  problems with regard to an already tottering social security system. Lay out 
  how it won't set the stage for polygamous and polyandrous unions with all the 
  inherent problems that will bring. Perhaps, if nothing else, explain to me 
  what the major tangible benefits of it would even be for you and your 
  partner.
   
  All the things that you claim you long for can be 
  achieved by other legal means. It is my understanding that most states allow 
  pretty much all accomadation to homosexual couples as they do hetro except the 
  title, why so adamant in your insistance for a change to the status 
  quo?
   
  g
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: 
    Mo Hendrickson 
    To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com 
    Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
    Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:11 
    PM
    Subject: [Vision2020] Choices
    
One question Gary.  I am hoping you can clarify this 
    point for me...

How would my desire to marry my partner adversely 
    affect you? 

Your marriage, I am making an assumption that you are 
    married, has no effect on me, so why would mine have any bearing on 
    you?  Why do you advocate for denying me and my partner a legally 
    recognized marriage?  

Not that I expect an answer but I thought 
    I would put it out there.  I guess anybody who is opposed to same 
    gender marriage could answer this question.  And so we don't head down 
    the ridiculous path of marrying goats, I am defining same gender marriage as 
    two consenting adults.  

-Mo



    
    From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 
    24 Jul 2009 12:41:22 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: 
    [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."


    

    Another inconsequential argument. No valid 
    marriages are being rendered "null and void" and I'm not suggesting that any 
    be made so. I think that my views are quite consistant. I'm in favor of 
    choice when the choice doesn't adversely affect others who have no way of 
    escaping my decision.
     
    What strikes me as strange is your notion that 
    your personally concocted idea of freedoms should be 
    celebrated and allowed to impact any and everyone with no regard for adverse 
    impact.
     
    g
     
     
    
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: 
      Joe Campbell 
      To: the lockshop 
      Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
      Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:43 
      AM
      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do 
      not continue to confuse people with facts."
      

      So you think that the state should not be forced to recognize 
      marriage? If they were to say that conservatives with inconsistent views 
      were not allowed to marry, and thus your marriage was null and void, that 
      would be fine with you? Yipes! As I said, this is a strange kind of 
      freedom!
      

      And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out the 
      implications of your own words.

Sent from my iPhone
      
On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, "the lockshop" 
      <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:


      
      
        
        Is mis-stating my position really the only 
        way you can think of to try and make a valid point?
         
        As I have said repeatedly, I believe that 
        if homosexuals can find someone who is willing to pronounce them man and 
        man, wife and wife, or man, wife, wife, or any permutation 
        thereof then swell, I wish them the best. What I am not in favor of 
        is in my or the state being forced to recognize it.
         
        With regard to the abortion issue 
        though I've really got to admit that you've got me caught on the horns 
        of a delimma. How could I not see the similarity between making a 
        choice that has a 1 in 15 chance of potentially damaging the 
         health of the person doing the choosing and making 
        a decision that has a 100% chance of killing an innocent 
        party?
         
        In both of your examples the decision 
        extends to others who will not be given a choice to participate. Bar 
        patrons and employess do get to make an informed choice and as a result 
        your comments seem a trifle lame.
         
        g
        
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: 
          Joe Campbell 
          To: the lockshop 
          Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
          
          Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 
          AM
          Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please 
          do not continue to confuse people with facts."
          

          You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about 
          whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop pretending 
          to respect a person's right to make decisions for him or 
          herself! 

Sent from my iPhone
          
On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" 
          <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:


          
          
            
            It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our 
            city council have a mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the 
            patrons and employees of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your 
            students but, I find it very difficult to believe that by the time a 
            citizen reaches the age of 21 in the United States he 
            hasn't heard the anti-smoking mantra to the point of 
            nausea.
             
            How lucky we are that there are people out 
            there who will take it upon themselves to prevent emancipated 
            Americans from making their own decisions with regard to the risks 
            they take in life.
             
            g
            
              ----- Original Message ----- 
              From: 
              TIM RIGSBY 
              To: starbliss at gmail.com ; 
              vision2020 at moscow.com 
              
              Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 
              7:47 AM
              Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 
              "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."
              
I would like to add the idea of this 
              saying,

"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good 
              story."

Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid 
              points that tend to be forgotten when people discuss 
              tobacco/smoking regulation and legislation.  What scares me 
              as a Health Teacher is when I hear my junior high and high school 
              aged students talking about how safe, they think anyway, Hookah 
              bars are.  When asked if they would ever smoke cigarettes, 
              they claim that they won't.  Yet what these students don't 
              realize is that they are actually smoking tobacco at the high 
              school hookah parties.  What is even scarier is a lot of the 
              parents think that hookah is a safe alternative as well.  
              

The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly 
              packed with young people all of the time.  Often times, other 
              substances are being laced into the tobacco as well and these 
              young people are unknowingly smoking illegal drugs along with 
              their fruit and tobacco mixture.

I predict in the not so 
              distant future, Boise and possibly the State Legislature will 
              enact legislation to regulate/control these hookah 
              establishments.

Here is a question to ponder.  By 
              definition based on Idaho Code, what is a hookah bar categorized 
              as?  A restaurant, a bar, a private club?  If it falls 
              under the bar definition, then people under 21 should not be 
              allowed in.  It seems as though hookah bars would fall into 
              an undefined gray area of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act.  
              However, Moscow seems to have covered hookah bars in their recent 
              ban of smoking, I could be wrong though.

" 'Politics is the 
              art of controlling your environment.' That is one of the key 
              things I learned in these years, and I learned it the hard way. 
              Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's President' has 
              never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, 
              stupid War on the other side of the World -- or been beaten and 
              gassed by Police for trespassing on public property -- or been 
              hounded by the IRS for purely political reasons -- or locked up in 
              the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and 
              twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower. That is 
              when it matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That 
              is when you will wish you had voted." - Hunter S. 
              Thompson





              
              Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
From: 
              starbliss at gmail.com
To: 
              vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: 
              [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with 
              facts."


              The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as 
              one of the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants, 
              that I received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in 
              total what is stated in the subject heading of this post.  
              Wise words, no doubt, that I ignore at my own risk... 
               
              Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the 
              critical facts my post presented: that tobacco 
              (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug, with 
              underage tobacco addiction common, raising questions if whether 
              adult "choice" is in effect regarding employees or consumers in 
              tobacco related decisions; that tobacco is the leading cause 
              of premature death (nuclear waste or energy or even nuclear 
              weapons production is not even close as a cause of premature 
              death); that other drugs doing less harm to society than tobacco 
              are criminalized and prosecuted aggressively, involving civil 
              and human rights violations, yet who among those opposing 
              regulation of tobacco, will as aggressively advocate for 
              these drugs to be managed by free choice and the marketplace, 
              rather than a government "Big Brother?"  Some, perhaps... 
              While there are others who should know better playing some on 
              this list as fools, for the sake of debate, or political 
              advantage, or popular image or whatever... Or they are as deluded 
              as those they are debating with...
               
              My response to the "Off List" comment discussed 
              here:
               
              Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief 
              that expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get 
              that dangerous idea?  I''ll end up in serious trouble!  
              Oh, I forgot, I already am...), I may not comply.  I recently 
              read a variation of this same expression in James Lovelock's 
              "Revenge of Gaia:" "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made 
              up."  Lovelock was referring to this mentality regarding the 
              rejection of nuclear power by many in the environmental 
              movement.
               
              Ted
   
              
              
                
                Please do not continue to confuse people with 
                facts. 
                
                  
                  ----- Original Message ----- 
                  
                  From: 
                  Ted Moffett 
                  To: Moscow Vision 2020 
                  Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 
                  2009 1:55 AM
                  Subject: [Vision2020] 
                  Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leading Killer: Centers for 
                  Disease Control
                  
 
                  Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug.  
                  Once addicted, "choice" becomes a problematic concept.  
                  And many people become addicted while underage, encouraged to 
                  continue their addiction in bars, where cigarettes are 
                  often shared between customers.  
                   
                  The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from 
                  the comments of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are 
                  the facts regarding the magnitude of the 
                  damage.  Comparisons to other harmful behaviors 
                  are drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting that a slippery slope 
                  of regulation will lead to government control over too many 
                  aspects of life, but many of these behaviors do not 
                  involve a drug addiction.  Of course alcohol has dramatic 
                  negative impacts.  But workers in bars are not forced to 
                  drink the drinks the customers order, as 
                  they breathe the smoke of the customers.  
                   
                  I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed 
                  to an addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is 
                  approached so callously.  They can work elsewhere, it's 
                  announced with smug authority, as if in this economy workers 
                  have the luxury of choosing whatever job suits their fancy, 
                  rather than an urgency to take whatever work they can 
                  find.  If it was cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine 
                  that workers were exposed to, the attitude might be 
                  different.  
                   
                  Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the 
                  workplace should be protected based on free market, free 
                  choice, adult responsibility?  If this is the logic, 
                  where are the protests against laws imposed on 
                  those selling cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, et. 
                  al., to consenting adults, which can result in long 
                  prison sentences?  Let the free market decide!  Why 
                  stand in the way of profits and the free choice of 
                  adults?  
                   
                  If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent 
                  in their outrage against limits on the free market, their 
                  ideology might have more intellectual credibility.  
                  Instead, the libertarianism proposed is inconsistent and 
                  conformist.  Or perhaps those opposed to the smoking 
                  ordinance will now protest that bars do not allow legal 
                  cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine use?  Think of the 
                  profits to be made!  And remember, tobacco prematurely 
                  kills more people than those three drugs combined...
                   
                  If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like 
                  cannabis is, resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, 
                  for sale or use, I would oppose this vehemently.  But an 
                  ordinance regulating smoking in bars does not stop any adult 
                  from legally using tobacco products in settings where they do 
                  not expose workers.
                   
                  If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to 
                  justify the exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than 
                  OSHA could be mostly eliminated.  After all, if workers 
                  exposed to hazards monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to 
                  work with those risks, they can work elsewhere, as long as 
                  signs posted in the workplace inform them of the risks.  
                  A "Big Brother" government bureaucracy gone.  
                  --------------------------
                  http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
                  
                  The Burden of Tobacco UseTobacco use is the single 
                  most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in 
                  the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die 
                  prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and 
                  another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking. 
                  For every person who dies from smoking, 20 more people suffer 
                  from at least one serious tobacco-related illness. Despite 
                  these risks, approximately 43.4 million U.S. adults smoke 
                  cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have 
                  deadly consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and 
                  oral cancers.
The harmful effects of smoking do not end 
                  with the smoker. More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, 
                  including children and adults, are regularly exposed to 
                  secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be dangerous because 
                  nonsmokers inhale many of the same carcinogens and toxins in 
                  cigarette smoke as smokers. Secondhand smoke exposure causes 
                  serious disease and death, including heart disease and lung 
                  cancer in nonsmoking adults and sudden infant death syndrome, 
                  acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent 
                  and severe asthma attacks in children. Each year, primarily 
                  because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 
                  nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 
                  (range: 22,700–69,600) die of heart disease, and about 
                  150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower 
                  respiratory tract infections.
Coupled with this enormous 
                  health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco 
                  use—more than $96 billion per year in medical expenditures and 
                  another $97 billion per year resulting from lost 
                  productivity.

                  
                  [A text description of 
                  this graph is also available.]
                  The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be StoppedA 2007 
                  Institute of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint for 
                  action to “reduce smoking so substantially that it is no 
                  longer a public health problem for our nation.” The 
                  two-pronged strategy for achieving this goal includes not only 
                  strengthening and fully implementing currently proven tobacco 
                  control measures, but also changing the regulatory landscape 
                  to permit policy innovations. Foremost among the IOM 
                  recommendations is that each state should fund a comprehensive 
                  tobacco control program at the level recommended by CDC in 
                  Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control 
                  Programs–2007.
Evidence-based, statewide tobacco 
                  control programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and 
                  accountable have been shown to reduce smoking rates, 
                  tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by smoking. A 
                  comprehensive program is a coordinated effort to establish 
                  smoke-free policies and social norms, to promote and assist 
                  tobacco users to quit, and to prevent initiation of tobacco 
                  use. This approach combines educational, clinical, regulatory, 
                  economic, and social strategies.
Research has documented 
                  the effectiveness of laws and policies to protect the public 
                  from secondhand smoke exposure, promote cessation, and prevent 
                  initiation when they are applied in a comprehensive way. For 
                  example, states can increase the unit price of tobacco 
                  products; implement smoking bans through policies, 
                  regulations, and laws; provide insurance coverage of tobacco 
                  use treatment; and limit minors’ access to tobacco 
                  products.
If the nation is to achieve the objectives 
                  outlined in Healthy People 2010, comprehensive, 
                  evidence-based approaches for preventing smoking initiation 
                  and increasing cessation need to be fully implemented.

                  CDC's ResponseCDC is the lead federal agency for 
                  tobacco control. CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) 
                  provides national leadership for a comprehensive, broad-based 
                  approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of government 
                  agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and 
                  academic institutions have joined together to advance this 
                  approach, which involves the following activities:

                  
                    Preventing young people from starting to 
                    smoke.
  
                    Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
  
                    Promoting quitting among young people and 
                    adults.
  
                    Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health 
                    disparities. Essential elements of this approach 
                  include state-based, community-based, and health system-based 
                  interventions; cessation services; counter marketing; policy 
                  development and implementation; surveillance; and evaluation. 
                  These activities target groups who are at highest risk for 
                  tobacco-related health 
                  problems.
-------------------------------------------
Vision2020 
                  Post: Ted 
              Moffett



              
              Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite 
              sports pics. Check it out. 

              
              
=======================================================
 List 
              services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving 
              the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
              
               
              http://www.fsr.net                       
              
          
              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 
              

              
              

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG 
              - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 
              270.13.26/2257 - Release Date: 07/23/09 
            18:00:00

          
            =======================================================
List 
            services made available by First Step Internet, 
            
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
              
              http://www.fsr.net 
                                  
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

          
          

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - 
          www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 
          270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/24/09 
      05:58:00


      
      

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - 
      www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - 
      Release Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00


    
    

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - 
    www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release 
    Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00


  
  Get free photo software from Windows Live Click here. 
  
  


  
=======================================================
 List 
  services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the 
  communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
  
               
  http://www.fsr.net                       
  
          
  mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090814/69f7f8e6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list