[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 13:55:46 PDT 2009
Bear,
I'm in full agreement that Bucer's is a great example of the kind of
solution that should work; too bad the new law doesn't allow for it.
That was a huge mistake, not to give folks some wiggle room to allow
for something like that.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Good question, but maybe that should have been addressed by the Gang
> of 7 before they acted on the anniversary of the attempt on their
> role models life in 1944!
>
> Personally, the enclosed and vented smoking area at Buccer's is
> actually a GREAT example of just how a "smoking area" should work,
> but rather than look at a good example and give bar and club owners
> the choice,
> the Gang of 7 decided that they know better. I hope the political
> lobbyests that they kow-towed to from Boise come to their help on
> November, or maybe that is the quid-pro-quo!
>
>
>
>
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:28 PM, TIM RIGSBY wrote:
>
>> Riddle me this...
>>
>> Why has Bucer's been allowed to break Idaho Law since the 2004
>> passage of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act?
>>
>> They are not a bar, they are a restaurant by state definition.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:52:44 -0700
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>>
>> 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
>>
>> NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. 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
>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> 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/20090722/9dab88ba/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list