[Vision2020] Choices

[Joe Campbell]

Crabtree,

I had nothing to do with the smoking ban, which would have easily  
passed given the support of the five men you voted into office over  
the last two elections alone. I worked my ass off to try to prevent  
your guys from getting elected ... but it's still my fault!  
Nonetheless you'll find a way to forget the facts again come November!  
All I can say is, You got what you voted for!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2009, at 7:53 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>  
wrote:

> 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 di 
> sease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months hav 
> e 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 expe 
> nditures and another $97 billion per year resulting from lost produc 
> tivity.
>
>
> [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 pu 
> blic health problem for our nation.” The two-pronged strategy for ac 
> hieving this goal includes not only strengthening and fully implemen 
> ting currently proven tobacco control measures, but also changing th 
> e regulatory landscape to permit policy innovations. Foremost among  
> the IOM recommendations is that each state should fund a comprehensi 
> ve tobacco control program at the level recommended by CDC in Best P 
> ractices 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 comprehe 
> nsive, broad-based approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of go 
> vernment agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and aca 
> demic institutions have joined together to advance this approach, wh 
> ich 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
> =======================================================
>
>
> <imstp_animation_monkey_en_020908.gif>
> =======================================================
>  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/20090725/354c28ff/attachment-0001.html