[Vision2020] Choices
g. crabtree
jampot at roadrunner.com
Sat Jul 25 16:53:57 PDT 2009
Actually, the person you should be asking is Wayne. Near as I can make it the only legal public place a person might be able to smoke would be the middle of a parking lot and I'm sure that will only be a temporary condition. Campbell and The council will want to protect parked cars from second hand smoke as soon as they're made aware of the problem.
g
----- Original Message -----
From: Shelley Roderick
To: Wayne Price ; Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
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:
a.. Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
b.. Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
c.. Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
d.. 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
=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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/20090725/70dc47e4/attachment-0001.html
-------------- 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/20090725/70dc47e4/attachment-0001.gif
-------------- 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/20090725/70dc47e4/attachment-0001.jpe
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list