[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

[Shelley Roderick]

"Same thing in each case, that there should be NO restrictions on sales
Of any kind as long as choice and full disclosure are present. That
View is at least consistent but it strikes me as absurd and dangerous."

Joe - may I ask why it "strikes you as absurd and dangerous?" A person has a
right to choose. As a person has a right to liberty. People today live in
homes that have asbestos. They live in homes that have been built on dumps.

Phil
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: Joe Campbell
Date: 7/22/2009 1:40:27 PM
To: the lockshop;  vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
 
ALL laws are such that at one time they were not illegal before the
"meddling" of government officials. There are NO laws that have been
on the books forever. This is no more relevant to the issue of whether
or not something SHOULD be legal or illegal than the fact that it IS
legal or illegal.
 
The main point of the example is that individual choice has its
limits. We could change the example to selling land on nuclear dump
sites or selling the property of victims who have recently died from
contagious diseases or whatever. Your view commits you to saying the
same thing in each case, that there should be NO restrictions on sales
of any kind as long as choice and full disclosure are present. That
view is at least consistent but it strikes me as absurd and dangerous.
 
Is the secondhand smoke problem as worrisome as the above cases? Of
course not. I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments against
the new anti-smoking law are not very good; choice and full disclosure
are not the only things that matter. Safety of others is important,
too. The current case is more difficult than some of the council
critics are willing to admit since it involves a CONFLICT of rights
(of sorts).
 
And Bear, I'm not the opposition. I'm just a guy pointing out a bad
argument. If it were up to me -- were I a council member -- I would
not have voted for the new law. I'm genuinely torn about the issue and
I think it is much more complex, more difficult than either side will
admit. It seems too complex for such a quick decision.
 
Sent from my iPhone
 
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM, the lockshop<lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
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/20090722/935eee11/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/935eee11/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 31851 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/935eee11/attachment-0001.gif