[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 07:04:22 PDT 2009
I should add that if erring on the side of caution were relevant, you
should be in favor of laws againts eating non-human animals. After
all, some think they're persons too -- not humans but persons, things
deserving of the right to life -- and who are you to say otherwise?
After all, we don't want to unknowingly kill persons, do we?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:40 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
wrote:
> "He believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all
> other views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can
> be certain of and that the law should deal with knowledge, not
> certainty."
>
> Since I believe that the fetus is a person, how could I not believe
> that it trumps all other views? Since, as you admit there is
> uncertainty, I prefer to err on the side of caution and allow a
> fetus to live rather than take a what the hell attitude and have an
> innocent person die.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Wayne Price
> Cc: the lockshop ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people
> with facts."
>
> Wayne,
>
> I share your beliefs -- exactly. And in the past Crabtree has made
> fun of these same beliefs, so don't expect him to respond. As in the
> case of Sunil's questions, he'll remain silent when his
> inconsistencies are obvious. The diiference between our views and
> Crabtree's is that we genuinely respect freedom and think people
> should decide for themselves about personal, religious,
> philosophical issues. Crabtree is only for those freedoms that
> coincide with his own world view. He is not for freedom per se. He
> believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other
> views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can be
> certain of and that the law should deal with knowledge, not certainty.
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary,
>>
>> I too am stuck with this one. While I am personally anti-abortion,
>> I am still pro-choice on the matter. IF I were in a situation where
>> the abortion decision had to be made, I would choose NOT to
>> terminate the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption. HOWEVER,
>> I still believe that the choice to be made should NOT be the
>> governments to make but the individuals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is mis-stating my position really the only way you can think of to
>>> try and make a valid point?
>>>
>>> As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if homosexuals can find
>>> someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man, wife and
>>> wife, or man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then swell, I
>>> wish them the best. What I am not in favor of is in my or the
>>> state being forced to recognize it.
>>>
>>> With regard to the abortion issue though I've really got to admit
>>> that you've got me caught on the horns of a delimma. How could I
>>> not see the similarity between making a choice that has a 1 in 15
>>> chance of potentially damaging the health of the person doing the
>>> choosing and making a decision that has a 100% chance of killing
>>> an innocent party?
>>>
>>> In both of your examples the decision extends to others who will
>>> not be given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and employess do
>>> get to make an informed choice and as a result your comments seem
>>> a trifle lame.
>>>
>>> g
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>> To: the lockshop
>>> Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>> people with facts."
>>>
>>> You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about
>>> whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop
>>> pretending to respect a person's right to make decisions for him
>>> or herself!
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city council have a
>>>> mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons and
>>>> employees of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your students
>>>> but, I find it very difficult to believe that by the time a
>>>> citizen reaches the age of 21 in the United States he hasn't
>>>> heard the anti-smoking mantra to the point of nausea.
>>>>
>>>> How lucky we are that there are people out there who will take it
>>>> upon themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from making
>>>> their own decisions with regard to the risks they take in life.
>>>>
>>>> g
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: TIM RIGSBY
>>>> To: starbliss at gmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>> people with facts."
>>>>
>>>> I would like to add the idea of this saying,
>>>>
>>>> "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
>>>>
>>>> Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points that tend
>>>> to be forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking regulation
>>>> and legislation. What scares me as a Health Teacher is when I
>>>> hear my junior high and high school aged students talking about
>>>> how safe, they think anyway, Hookah bars are. When asked if they
>>>> would ever smoke cigarettes, they claim that they won't. Yet
>>>> what these students don't realize is that they are actually
>>>> smoking tobacco at the high school hookah parties. What is even
>>>> scarier is a lot of the parents think that hookah is a safe
>>>> alternative as well.
>>>>
>>>> The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed
>>>> with young people all of the time. Often times, other substances
>>>> are being laced into the tobacco as well and these young people
>>>> are unknowingly smoking illegal drugs along with their fruit and
>>>> tobacco mixture.
>>>>
>>>> I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the
>>>> State Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control
>>>> these hookah establishments.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a question to ponder. By definition based on Idaho Code,
>>>> what is a hookah bar categorized as? A restaurant, a bar, a
>>>> private club? If it falls under the bar definition, then people
>>>> under 21 should not be allowed in. It seems as though hookah
>>>> bars would fall into an undefined gray area of the Idaho Clean
>>>> Indoor Air Act. However, Moscow seems to have covered hookah
>>>> bars in their recent ban of smoking, I could be wrong though.
>>>>
>>>> " 'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is
>>>> one of the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it
>>>> the hard way. Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's
>>>> President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die
>>>> in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World -- or
>>>> been beaten and gassed by Police for trespassing on public
>>>> property -- or been hounded by the IRS for purely political
>>>> reasons -- or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken
>>>> nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp
>>>> your ass in the shower. That is when it matters who is President
>>>> or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had
>>>> voted." - Hunter S. Thompson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
>>>> From: starbliss at gmail.com
>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people
>>>> with facts."
>>>>
>>>> The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as one
>>>> of the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants, that I
>>>> received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in total what
>>>> is stated in the subject heading of this post. Wise words, no
>>>> doubt, that I ignore at my own risk...
>>>>
>>>> Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the critical
>>>> facts my post presented: that tobacco (nicotine) is a physically
>>>> addictive drug, with underage tobacco addiction common, raising
>>>> questions if whether adult "choice" is in effect regarding
>>>> employees or consumers in tobacco related decisions; that tobacco
>>>> is the leading cause of premature death (nuclear waste or energy
>>>> or even nuclear weapons production is not even close as a cause
>>>> of premature death); that other drugs doing less harm to society
>>>> than tobacco are criminalized and prosecuted aggressively,
>>>> involving civil and human rights violations, yet who among those
>>>> opposing regulation of tobacco, will as aggressively advocate for
>>>> these drugs to be managed by free choice and the marketplace,
>>>> rather than a government "Big Brother?" Some, perhaps... While
>>>> there are others who should know better playing some on this list
>>>> as fools, for the sake of debate, or political advantage, or
>>>> popular image or whatever... Or they are as deluded as those they
>>>> are debating with...
>>>>
>>>> My response to the "Off List" comment discussed here:
>>>>
>>>> Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief that
>>>> expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that
>>>> dangerous idea? I''ll end up in serious trouble! Oh, I forgot,
>>>> I already am...), I may not comply. I recently read a variation
>>>> of this same expression in James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia:"
>>>> "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up." Lovelock
>>>> was referring to this mentality regarding the rejection of
>>>> nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.
>>>>
>>>> Ted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please do not continue to confuse people with facts.
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Ted Moffett
>>>> To: Moscow Vision 2020
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leading
>>>> Killer: Centers for Disease Control
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug. Once
>>>> addicted, "choice" becomes a problematic concept. And many
>>>> people become addicted while underage, encouraged to continue
>>>> their addiction in bars, where cigarettes are often shared
>>>> between customers.
>>>>
>>>> The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the
>>>> comments of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are
>>>> the facts regarding the magnitude of the
>>>> damage. Comparisons to other harmful behaviors are drawn (fatty
>>>> food, etc.), suggesting that a slippery slope of regulation will
>>>> lead to government control over too many aspects of life, but
>>>> many of these behaviors do not involve a drug addiction. Of
>>>> course alcohol has dramatic negative impacts. But workers in
>>>> bars are not forced to drink the drinks the customers order, as
>>>> they breathe the smoke of the customers.
>>>>
>>>> I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to an
>>>> addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is approached
>>>> so callously. They can work elsewhere, it's announced with smug
>>>> authority, as if in this economy workers have the luxury of
>>>> choosing whatever job suits their fancy, rather than an urgency
>>>> to take whatever work they can find. If it was cocaine or heroin
>>>> or methamphetamine that workers were exposed to, the attitude
>>>> might be different.
>>>>
>>>> Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the workplace
>>>> should be protected based on free market, free choice, adult
>>>> responsibility? If this is the logic, where are the protests
>>>> against laws imposed on those selling cocaine, heroin or
>>>> methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting adults, which can result
>>>> in long prison sentences? Let the free market decide! Why stand
>>>> in the way of profits and the free choice of adults?
>>>>
>>>> If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in their
>>>> outrage against limits on the free market, their ideology might
>>>> have more intellectual credibility. Instead, the libertarianism
>>>> proposed is inconsistent and conformist. Or perhaps those
>>>> opposed to the smoking ordinance will now protest that bars do
>>>> not allow legal cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine use? Think of
>>>> the profits to be made! And remember, tobacco prematurely kills
>>>> more people than those three drugs combined...
>>>>
>>>> If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis is,
>>>> resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or use, I
>>>> would oppose this vehemently. But an ordinance regulating
>>>> smoking in bars does not stop any adult from legally using
>>>> tobacco products in settings where they do not expose workers.
>>>>
>>>> If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify the
>>>> exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA could be
>>>> mostly eliminated. After all, if workers exposed to hazards
>>>> monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to work
>>>> with those risks, they can work elsewhere, as
>>>> long as signs posted in the workplace inform them of the risks.
>>>> A "Big Brother" government bureaucracy gone.
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
>>>> The Burden of Tobacco Use
>>>>
>>>> Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease,
>>>> disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an
>>>> estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure
>>>> to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious
>>>> illness caused by smoking. For every person who dies from
>>>> smoking, 20 more people suffer from at least one serious tobacco-
>>>> related illness. Despite these risks, approximately 43.4 million
>>>> U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and
>>>> pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx,
>>>> esophageal, and oral cancers.
>>>> The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. More
>>>> than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including children and
>>>> adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief
>>>> exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the
>>>> same carcinogens and toxins in cigarette smoke as smokers.
>>>> Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death,
>>>> including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and
>>>> sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear
>>>> problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in
>>>> children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand
>>>> smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung
>>>> cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of heart d
>>>> isease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 mon
>>>> ths have lower respiratory tract infections.
>>>> Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant
>>>> economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion per year
>>>> in medical expenditures and another $97 billion per year resul
>>>> ting from lost productivity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [A text description of this graph is also available.]
>>>>
>>>> The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be Stopped
>>>>
>>>> A 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint
>>>> for action to “reduce smoking so substantially that it is no l
>>>> onger a public health problem for our nation.” The two-pronged
>>>> strategy for achieving this goal includes not only strengthen
>>>> ing and fully implementing currently proven tobacco control me
>>>> asures, but also changing the regulatory landscape to permit p
>>>> olicy innovations. Foremost among the IOM recommendations is t
>>>> hat each state should fund a comprehensive tobacco control pro
>>>> gram at the level recommended by CDC in Best Practices for Com
>>>> prehensive Tobacco Control Programs–2007.
>>>> Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are
>>>> comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to
>>>> reduce smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused
>>>> by smoking. A comprehensive program is a coordinated effort to
>>>> establish smoke-free policies and social norms, to promote and
>>>> assist tobacco users to quit, and to prevent initiation of
>>>> tobacco use. This approach combines educational, clinical,
>>>> regulatory, economic, and social strategies.
>>>> Research has documented the effectiveness of laws and policies to
>>>> protect the public from secondhand smoke exposure, promote
>>>> cessation, and prevent initiation when they are applied in a
>>>> comprehensive way. For example, states can increase the unit
>>>> price of tobacco products; implement smoking
>>>> bans through policies, regulations, and laws; provide
>>>> insurance coverage of tobacco use treatment; and
>>>> limit minors’ access to tobacco products.
>>>> If the nation is to achieve the objectives outlined in Healthy
>>>> People 2010, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for
>>>> preventing smoking initiation and increasing cessation need to be
>>>> fully implemented.
>>>> CDC's Response
>>>>
>>>> CDC is the lead federal agency for tobacco control. CDC’s Offi
>>>> ce on Smoking and Health (OSH) provides national leadership fo
>>>> r a comprehensive, broad-based approach to reducing tobacco us
>>>> e. A variety of government agencies, professional and voluntar
>>>> y organizations, and academic institutions have joined togethe
>>>> r to advance this approach, which involves the following activ
>>>> ities:
>>>> Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
>>>>
>>>> Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
>>>>
>>>> Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
>>>>
>>>> Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
>>>> Essential elements of this approach include state-based,
>>>> community-based, and health system-based interventions; cessation
>>>> services; counter marketing; policy development and
>>>> implementation; surveillance; and evaluation. These activities
>>>> target groups who are at highest risk for tobacco-related
>>>> health problems.
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorit
>>>> e sports pics. Check it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> 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: 270.13.26/2257 - Release Date:
>>>> 07/23/09 18:00:00
>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> 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
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
>>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>> =======================================================
>>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:
> 07/24/09 05:58:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090725/0e6997fb/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list