[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

[Joe Campbell]

It is now illegal to smoke in doors, Phil! Did you forget? This is a  
different issue (see my reply to Gary).

If I understand you correctly, it should be legal to sell folks  
anything one wishes as long as he is aware of what he is buying. Is  
that it? I can't agree with that but at least it is consistent!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:20 PM, "Shelley Roderick" <cjsnightclub at cableone.net 
 > wrote:

> But this would be true for any danger. If this were a sound  
> argument, it would equally support a company's "right" to toxic waste!
> Nope - toxic waste is "illegal"
>
> A better example: why can't people build on toxic waste dumps and  
> sell the houses for super cheap? After all, if folks buy the houses,  
> it is their choice? We could just say "You didn't have to buy the  
> house!" Problem solved!
> They have built and sold those houses. But they have to be notified  
> in the CC&R's. The buyer is well aware of what he is buying. His  
> choice. Same with earthquake fault, landfills, etc.
>
> Phil
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Joe Campbell
> Date: 7/22/2009 6:50:19 AM
> To: g. crabtree
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com;  Garrett Clevenger
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> But this would be true for any danger. If this were a sound  
> argument, it would equally support a company's "right" to toxic waste!
>
> A better example: why can't people build on toxic waste dumps and  
> sell the houses for super cheap? After all, if folks buy the houses,  
> it is their choice? We could just say "You didn't have to buy the  
> house!" Problem solved!
>
> Not that I have a horse in this race -- it seems like a tricky issue  
> and I feel for the smokers among us. But it does seem as much of a  
> workers' rights issue as anything else. It seems to be well within  
> the state's rights to protect workers, whether they want the  
> protection or not.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>  
> wrote:
>
> Why do you repeatedly use the phrase "have to breathe" when  
> referring to employees and patrons? Neither of these groups "have to  
> do any such thing. They can make a rational adult choice and not  
> frequent the establishment.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Garrett Clevenger
> To: Darrell Keim
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> The government does try to regulate behavior on private property.  
> We're talking about businesses open to the public, though. They  
> can't even sell alcohol without a permit, and alcohol is legal. Why  
> should they be allowed to knowingly endanger public health with  
> second hand smoke, when there are ways to prevent that?
>
> If a smoker wants to smoke a carcinogenic and addictive substance,  
> that's their right, but that doesn't give them the right to pollute  
> the air others have to breath. It seems reasonable to try to limit  
> the exposure to second hand smoke, and if businesses won't do it,  
> then apparently the city feels the need to ban it completely. Since  
> they like to pass laws without proper consideration, I'm not  
> surprised. Could we have gotten a better written law? Yes.
>
> Second hand smoke should be a regulated hazardous substance. You  
> know they use nicotine bombs in greenhouses to kill the pests?  
> Granted that's concentrated, but cigarettes also contain numerous  
> other chemicals, from pesticides to preservatives, making that smoke  
> even more toxic. Not only is it bad for people to breath, it  
> destroys whatever may be in the room. Replacing a pair of speakers  
> is not cheap, but things will wear out quicker in a smokey bar than  
> a non-smokey one.
>
> Obviously drinking too much alcohol can be even worse. Bars will cut  
> overly drunk people off to try to prevent accidents (and not be  
> liable) People who go to a bar can choose not to drink. I'm not  
> advocating prohibition and I'm not advocating banning smoking. I  
> like beer too much and people will smoke anyway. But while being in  
> a room full of drunk people may be annoying, if there's smoke, it's  
> even worse as that smoke is unavoidable and extremely irritating to  
> some people. Those smokers took that choice away. Their only real  
> choice is to leave, but that still doesn't address the overall  
> problems caused by second hand smoke.
>
> Maybe you know more about the clean air standards, but I imagine  
> they apply to places where people go. Do businesses have the right  
> to have any contaminants that might be present? That would seem like  
> a violation of some type of law, but maybe you are saying there is a  
> free-for-all, buyer-beware. If indoor air quality is a concern for  
> the government in general, it seems like second-hand smoke should be  
> on that list.
>
> Like I said before, I'm not a supporter of the law that was passed.  
> They should have at least given it three votes to get more public  
> feedback. But I'm not as against this law as the noise ordinance,  
> which affects our first amendment right. Where were you when the  
> city passed that? I'll admit I may not be super consistent, but I  
> will definitely stand up for protection of free speech rights over  
> the right of a business to pollute the air its employees and patrons  
> have to breath.
>
> Bars can have better ventilation systems and reduce areas where  
> people can smoke, and Les Schwab can put their tires in a room where  
> people aren't working all day. Walmart should be ventilating their  
> air better, as a room that size full of brand new plastics and  
> questionable Chinese products should be suspicious to people who are  
> aware that there are some nasty chemicals that build up indoors that  
> you should not be breathing on a regular basis.
>
> Obviously not all businesses will "do whatever" but enough will do  
> things they shouldn't to make a buck. To not regulate businesses,  
> and expect them to be angels, seems naive. Protecting people's  
> health will save society money in the long run, and reduce the  
> chances of people suffering disease from the indoor air they breath.
>
> Set indoor air quality standards, and let businesses try to meet  
> them without taking away what may be a vital part of their livelihood.
>
> Garrett Clevenger
>
>
> From: Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
> To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:01:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Garrett Clevenger<garrettmc at verizon.net 
> > wrote:
> > My point is government regulates nuisances.
> You bet it regulates nuisances.  Public nuisances, for the most part.
> I am against the gov't coming onto private property and regulating
> against behavior that is not generally deemed illegal.  If the gov't
> can regulate behavior on your neighbors property, they will soon be
> doing the same to you.
>
> Like it or not, smoking is not a criminal behavior.
>
> >Second hand smoke is a nuisance.
> > It is noxious. It's poison. Businesses should not be allowed to  
> expose
> > people to it, and other noxious compounds, unreasonably.
> Obviously our definition of unreasonable behavior is different.  The
> businesses do not force you to enter and breathe the smoke anymore
> then they force you to drink.  You make the choice to go into the
> smoke filled environment.  Drinking also has very negative secondary
> consequences (behavior, driving, birth defects).  By your logic this
> should also be banned.  Wait.  We tried that.  Didn't work very well.
>
> > It's an epic struggle trying to regulate businesses. They want the  
> right to
> > do whatever.
> Businesses don't want the right to do whatever.  They want to be able
> to make a profit.  There is a big difference.  If a behavior is
> hurting business, they will generally refrain from it.
>
> > The people they affect want protection. Regulating smoking is
> > no different than regulating any other crap a business produces as a
> > by-product of its profit.
> Agreed.  Lets take filling stations as an example.  We all agree it is
> bad to pollute our environment with gas spills.  Thus they are
> regulated so that certain precautions and remediations are in place.
> This law isn't regulating smoking in the business.  A regulating law
> would require air cleaners or the like.  This is forbidding it.  Big
> difference.
>
> > Of course I have a right to not patronize these businesses. I also  
> have the
> > right to expect government to be consistent.
> If you expect consistency from the government you are in for a long
> wait.  We can work towards it, but our laws are to complex to ever
> achieve it.
>
> > If it can regulate what you see
> > (boobies) and what you hear (that's up to a cop) it should  
> regulate what you
> > breath.
> Actually our Gov't does have clean air standards.  They apply to
> outdoors.  I.E. the public.  Not to places a person chooses to go.
>
> >This world would become an ashtray quicker than it would otherwise.
> > Free speech trumps the right of smokers. If we can have a  
> draconian noise
> > ordinance, we can have a smoking ban.
> And you talk about needing consistency?  Weren't you rather
> passionately against the noise ordinance?
> The fact that we already have bad laws on the books does not mean we
> need more.
>
> > But my initial point was it's not about smoke, its about indoor  
> air quality
> > in general, and I would rather see those regulations than a  
> smoking ban. I
> > agree that, once again, the council didn't put time in to ensuring  
> that this
> > works for more people than it may now.
> > Take a deeeeep breath...
> Actually I'd rather not take a deep breath in a number of the
> establishments I've been defending.  I may be against the ban, but
> that doesn't mean I like second hand smoke.
>
> >
> > Garrett Clevenger
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
> > To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> > Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:49:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
> >
> > Garrett:
> >
> > Your points below are so illogical it is almost funny.  Allow me to
> > address them.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Garrett Clevenger<garrettmc at verizon.net 
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Yeah, and you wouldn't have to patronize a nude bar, but that's  
> illegal
> >> too.
> > That's illogical:  Smoking isn't illegal.
> >> Businesses are regulated precisely because some people will do  
> anything to
> >> make money.
> > That's logical and true.
> >> Do you think it should just be a free-for-all, with no
> >> regulations what-so-ever?
> > That's illogical.  This isn't a zero-sum game.  We can and do have
> > proper regulation of businesses.  I think people should be able to
> > offer things that are generally considered legal (such as smoking)  
> in
> > their own businesses.
> >> I don't think business owners have a right to subject their  
> employees and
> >> patrons to known contaminants, just like they shouldn't be able  
> to dump
> >> their crap out the back door for others to deal with.
> > That's illogical:  Illegal dumping and known contaminants are two
> > separate issues.  One happens on ones own private property, the  
> other
> > in a public thoroughfare.
> > It is also illogical because, of course, businesses don't have a  
> right
> > to subject people to noxious substances.  That would imply people  
> had
> > no choice but to subject themselves to those substances.  They do.
> > They have a choice of where to work and what to patronize.
> >>
> >> Garrett Clevenger
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
> >> To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> >> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:45:08 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
> >>
> >> Since you don't HAVE to patronize it, it seems to me that the  
> business
> >> owners right to operate their establishment as they see fit  
> trumps all
> >> other rights.
> >>
> >> As I've said before, Welcome to Moscow.  Home of Big Mother.
> >>
> >>
> >>>It seems my right to breath clean air trumps another's right to
> >>> pollute it, just like my right to quiet trumps the right of the  
> band next
> >>> door to play loud all night long...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Garrett Clevenger
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================
> >>>  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
> >>> =======================================================
> >>>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
> <imstp_animation_butterflies_en_020908.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/eccd3e3f/attachment-0001.html