[Vision2020] Choices

Sat Jul 25 14:49:28 PDT 2009

Gary says, "If I'm in an area where I can legally smoke.....................
......."

Gary - where might that be in a public place?

Phil

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

From: Joe Campbell
Date: 7/25/2009 2:30:31 PM
To: Wayne Price
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices

Subjecting children to secondhand smoke! That ought to teach them!

And it is hard to see how I changed the topic since the first post in this
thread is from Gary and on abortion. But don't let the facts get in the way!
That's what Fox is for! 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:

Gary,

THANKS for bringing this back to the original problem, the smoking ban!
I agree 100% and think you summed up the problem of the smoking topic right
on the point!

I used to be very aware of non-smokers when I lit a cigarette  and I would
ask if it bothered them, and if it did, I would observe usual social
conventions and either not light up,
or move so that they could enjoy what ever they were doing without my smoke
bothering them. NOT any more after the 3rd of August ! Now, If I'm in an
area where I can legally smoke,
 I'm lighting up, and if the non-smokers don't like it, they can head to a
bar or private club where they don't have to put up with second hand smoke!

And in all seriousness, take a look at where twenty feet from the door of
West of Paris is, in relationship to twenty feet from the door of the Garden
 Puts me right in the middle of the kiddy equipment,
Oh well, THATS what the non-smokers wanted, THATS what they get!

Wayne

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

On Jul 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, g. crabtree wrote:

Surprisingly, considering your short attention span, you have brought this
back around to the original topic which was the smoking ban and in that here
are the similarities I see.

A private citizen owns a business. It is open to all, be they patrons or
employees. The only stipulation being you must be willing to put up with the
bar's environment. A small group of people want to partake of the private
citizens private property but they do not want to endure the rules of use so
 rather than take advantage of already existing venues that already meet
their criterion, or create a new venue of their own that would fulfill their
needs, they use the sledgehammer of government to force the private property
owner and all of his clients who are perfectly happy with the current
arraignment to accede to their wishes.

Now, an institution exists called marriage. It may not be a perfect
institution but it has served its purpose relatively well for may years. It
is open to all, the only stipulation is that its an arraignment set up
solely for a man and a woman. A small group of people want to partake of
this arraignment but they do not want to have to follow the rules that are
set up for it. So, rather than utilizing an existing framework to obtain
their goals (legal documents such as wills, living wills, medical powers of
atty, etc.) or set up a new institution that will fulfill their desires
(domestic partnership), they attempt to use the sledgehammer of the state to
force their desires onto the majority.

In the first example, you claim that government and the small, vocal group
interested in changing the status quo were doing a good thing "in the name
of public health," even though the only people affected were those who
voluntarily entered the privately owned premises and that the hazard did not
extend beyond the walls to anyone who didn't choose to be there.

In the second example, you claim that a small, vocal group attempting to use
the power of government to alter the status quo is a good thing because.....
.??

g
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Campbell
To: g. crabtree
Cc: the lockshop ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices

You make it seem as if marriage is no big deal and not any different than
any old legal contract but if that is the case it is not clear why you got
married in the first place or why you would give a damn if two men married
each other. Can you explain that? If there is no difference why not just let
anyone marry whom ever they wish? Again, it is a strange view of freedom
that desires to keep folks from doing what they want even when, if we're to
believe your words below, you "don't care." Very strange indeed!

Again, compare your thoughts on this matter with your views on the new
anti-smoking law. Dan doesn't like smokey bars and as I noted there is lots
of evidence that second hand is physically harmful but you still called Dan 
selfish" (I think that was the word) for casting his vote. But somehow the
fact that you don't have a fondness for other guys and have unsupported
fantasies about the connection between gay marriage and "moral harms" that
is a different story. Even though marriage is no big deal it is not wrong or
selfish for you to do what you can to prevent gay weddings. (I'm assuming
that you voted for the constitutional ban on gay marriage but if I'm wrong
let me know.) 

Putting it all together, we're supposed to believe that when the local
government bans smoking in the name of public health that we're one step
closer to communism BUT the state is allowed to say who you can and can't
marry. Very strange view!

Say what you want but you are no fan of freedom -- unless by that you mean
the freedom to do what you see fit. And yes I will bring this up whenever
you or your radical conservative friends wave your flags and try to pretend
that you think freedom is important.   

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 24, 2009, at 9:29 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

If you had read my post a little more carefully you might have noted that I
did not ask anyone to explain why their actions are not harmful to society.
I have to justify nothing to anyone, much less you and neither does Moe.  I
have been asked for, and given explanation for my views on this and numerous
other topics on this forum frequently over the years, that I should ask
someone else for the same is arrogance? When it comes to inconsistency  (to
say nothing of belligerence) I can't hold a candle to you.

Just for the sake of mindless repetition, I have said repeatedly that I don
t care if homosexuals run out and have some sort of a little ceremony and
call themselves whatever they like. They can go to an attorney, in the same
way that my wife and I did, and have drawn up the same wills, durable powers
of attorney, living wills, revocable living trusts, etc. that will in effect
give them all the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy and I
m fine with it. They in effect already have everything they claim they want.
And yet it's not enough, my simple and apparently "arrogant" question is
why? I don't wish Moe and her pal any ill or unhappiness, I just want to
know why they require me  via the power of the state to play along before
their lives are complete. I don't think that this is an unreasonable
question to ask.

g

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Campbell
To: the lockshop
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices

I'll have more to say about this later since I'm about to drive home BUT can
YOU explain why any of your actions are not harmful to society? Do you think
you have to justify them to me before you're allowed to do anything? And is
there something besides your own arragance that makes you think folks owe
you an explanation? 

It seems strange to me that you could rip Dan a new one for infringing on
the "rights" for smokers, even though second hand smoke has been proven to
be harmful, yet you seem to believe that folks may only marry if they prove
to you that it is not harmful! 

There is no better argument for the claim that personal religious beliefs
have no place when it comes to matters of the law than you have illustrated
with this recent pair of inconsistent reasonings!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:26 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:

Since I've done that one before Mo, why not just for fun try a different
approach. Why don't you explain to me all the myriad ways in which you being
able to marry your partner is a benefit to me and/or society? Explain how it
will be good for children (mine or yours, assuming you have any), how it
will strenghten families, and how it won't cause large problems with regard
to an already tottering social security system. Lay out how it won't set the
stage for polygamous and polyandrous unions with all the inherent problems
that will bring. Perhaps, if nothing else, explain to me what the major
tangible benefits of it would even be for you and your partner.

All the things that you claim you long for can be achieved by other legal
means. It is my understanding that most states allow pretty much all
accomadation to homosexual couples as they do hetro except the title, why so
adamant in your insistance for a change to the status quo?

g
----- Original Message -----
From: Mo Hendrickson
To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:11 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Choices

One question Gary.  I am hoping you can clarify this point for me...

How would my desire to marry my partner adversely affect you? 

Your marriage, I am making an assumption that you are married, has no effect
on me, so why would mine have any bearing on you?  Why do you advocate for
denying me and my partner a legally recognized marriage?  

Not that I expect an answer but I thought I would put it out there.  I guess
anybody who is opposed to same gender marriage could answer this question. 
And so we don't head down the ridiculous path of marrying goats, I am
defining same gender marriage as two consenting adults.  

-Mo

From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:41:22 -0700
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."

Another inconsequential argument. No valid marriages are being rendered 
null and void" and I'm not suggesting that any be made so. I think that my
views are quite consistant. I'm in favor of choice when the choice doesn't
adversely affect others who have no way of escaping my decision.

What strikes me as strange is your notion that your personally concocted
idea of freedoms should be celebrated and allowed to impact any and everyone
with no regard for adverse impact.

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 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."

So you think that the state should not be forced to recognize marriage? If
they were to say that conservatives with inconsistent views were not allowed
to marry, and thus your marriage was null and void, that would be fine with
you? Yipes! As I said, this is a strange kind of freedom!

And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out the
implications of your own words.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:

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 disease
 and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months 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 resulting 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 longer a public health
problem for our nation.” The two-pronged strategy for achieving this goal
includes not only strengthening and fully implementing currently proven
tobacco control measures, but also changing the regulatory landscape to
permit policy innovations. Foremost among the IOM recommendations is that
each state should fund a comprehensive tobacco control program at the level
recommended by CDC in Best Practices for Comprehensive 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 Office on Smoking
and Health (OSH) provides national leadership for a comprehensive,
broad-based approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of government
agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and academic
institutions have joined together to advance this approach, which involves
the following activities:

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 favorite 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

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

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
=======================================================

=======================================================
 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/20090725/b42032b0/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/20090725/b42032b0/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/20090725/b42032b0/attachment-0001.gif 