[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
Wayne Price
bear at moscow.com
Wed Jul 22 13:26:44 PDT 2009
Gary,
The opposition will never understand CHOICE until their OX gets gored!
Now what is going to happen is when someone objects to my smoking in a
LEGALLY ALLOWED area, my response to them will be to go see city
council, that where I am at that point, I have the choice to smoke,
not them, be it the kiddy park in Friendship Square or 20 feet from a
door way. Besides, if they think it's bad here in Moskva, they should
see how they'd have to crawl over people to get into restaurants in
New York! *S*
On Jul 22, 2009, at 12:52 PM, the lockshop wrote:
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> I wasn't illegal before the councils meddling, as the law always
> exempted bars and private clubs. (the State giving a nod to the
> notion of private property and the acts of volition)
>
> Also I believe that one should be able to purchase property that had
> formerly been a toxic waste site as long as the fact has been
> disclosed.
>
> My example stands as in both cases the secondhand smoke and the jet
> noise were in place first and had to be sought out by those who
> would complain about it. In both cases the problem would not exist
> if the would be whiners would simply go somewhere else more to their
> liking rather then to search out a situation they found unpleasant
> and demand their whims be accomadated.
>
> g
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: g. crabtree ; <vision2020 at moscow.com> ; Garrett Clevenger
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> The debate is about what should or should not be a law, not about
> what is law. If what is the law matters, then you loose since now it
> is illegal to smoke in doors. Obviously this does not matter much
> when it comes to the question of whether it should or shouldn't be
> illegal. That is the debate.
>
> I take it that you think it should be illegal to sell folks houses
> built on a toxic waste dump even if they wanted to buy the land of
> their own free will. Why, given your last argument? That is the
> question.
>
> Your example is flawed since annoyance is not physical harm.
> Secondhand smoke causes physical harm to others; airport noise does
> not.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:52 PM, "the lockshop"
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
>> Your "better example" would have some validity were smoking and
>> the generation of second hand smoke illegal or if the fact it were
>> being generated was being concealed from the patrons or the
>> employees.
>>
>> When it comes to nonsmoking employees and potential customers, a
>> better "better example" would be people who build homes next to an
>> airport and then whine to authorities about the noise.
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Campbell
>> To: g. crabtree
>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Garrett Clevenger
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:50 AM
>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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: 270.13.22/2253 - Release Date:
>> 07/21/09 18:02:00
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.23/2254 - Release Date:
> 07/22/09 05:59:00
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/6488cf23/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list