[Vision2020] Choices
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 16:49:21 PDT 2009
You're welcome over my house!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 25, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> THE parents have a CHOICE to expose them or not. I NO LONGER have a
> choice where to smoke, so where it will be legal to smoke, I will.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>
>> 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 Lead
>>>>>> ing 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) di
>>>>>> e of heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children you
>>>>>> nger 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 y
>>>>>> ear in medical expenditures and another $97 billion per ye
>>>>>> ar 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 onl
>>>>>> y strengthening and fully implementing currently proven to
>>>>>> bacco control measures, but also changing the regulatory l
>>>>>> andscape to permit policy innovations. Foremost among the
>>>>>> IOM recommendations is that each state should fund a compr
>>>>>> ehensive 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 leade
>>>>>> rship for a comprehensive, broad-based approach to reducin
>>>>>> g tobacco use. A variety of government agencies, professio
>>>>>> nal and voluntary organizations, and academic institutions
>>>>>> have joined together to advance this approach, which invo
>>>>>> lves 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 fav
>>>>>> orite 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/20090725/809efc29/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list