[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

Wed Jul 22 15:24:48 PDT 2009

Didn't John Weber ask that there be a smoking area inside that was walled
off and with negative air? The rest of the council basically Po pooed on
John and all laughed at the comment of the "peeing in the pool." That was
the downfall of the smoking room. Remember - John did vote for the ban in
the end. He did have a choice.

Phil 

-------Original Message-------

From: Joe Campbell
Date: 7/22/2009 1:56:17 PM
To: Wayne Price
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

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/20090722/0189aebc/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/20090722/0189aebc/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 41807 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/0189aebc/attachment-0001.gif 