[Vision2020] Choices

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Jul 26 07:03:12 PDT 2009


Your standards for proof are convienient. That was my point.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2009, at 9:59 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>  
wrote:

> The mayor and Weber made their positions on the ban abundantly clear  
> and as a result there is precious little chance I'll vote for either.
>
> You explicitly say you wouldn't have voted for this law were you on  
> the council (a nightmare scenario) and you waste no opportunity to  
> defend it.
>
> I have said several times in the past few days that I am extremely  
> disappointed with the actions of ALL the people who I supported who  
> came down in favor of this over reaching regulation but, don't try  
> and kid anyone into believing that their opponents would have voted  
> any differently if Lamar's vote and the mayors comments are anything  
> to go by. Since you feel I must accept some level of "blame" in the  
> matter, so be it. I am guilty of believing the nonsense the  
> candidates presented with regard to being in favor of small  
> government and being pro-business and in favor of private property  
> rights. Now, what's your responsibility for supporting the two  
> liberal leftovers who were side by side, cheek and jowl with the  
> people I am taking to task?
>
> I really have no idea where Larry Craig fits into this discussion  
> but, What I have ACTUALLY said on the topic was that the former  
> senator may or may not be gay and that the only proof positive would  
> be for him to make a statement of some kind. Pleading guilty to a  
> misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct isn't the damning evidence  
> foe homosexuality you seem to think it is.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: g. crabtree
> Cc: Shelley Roderick ; Wayne Price ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
>
> Gary,
>
> You are a funny man!
>
> The mayor is accountable, even though she didn't vote, which leaves  
> it open for you to vote for Weber, who did vote in favor of the  
> smoking ban. I've explicitly said that I wouldn't have voted for  
> this law were I on the council, and I'm not on the council and have  
> no intention of ever running, yet there is    a pox on my house.  
> (You keep confusing my criticism of some arguments against the ban  
> with my being in favor of it.) Five folks that you supported voted  
> for the ban, yet you don't accept any blame for that result and  
> you've only publically blamed one of them (who happens not to be up  
> for re-election this fall). And all the while you think that Larry  
> Craig is not gay, though he was caught trying to pick up a police  
> officer in a known gay pick-up joint (it was a sting operation, run  
> due to complaints from the public) and pled guilty to the charge.
>
> How wonderful it is that your beliefs remain regardless of the  
> reasons for or against them!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 8:35 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> You're right in that the people I supported turned out to be  
>> worthless when it came to this issue, a mistake I won't likely make  
>> again. Of course your Mayor and the residual lib member went with  
>> the ban as a matter of course. That I expected. You have been  
>> cheerleading the decision since its passage. A pox on all three  
>> houses.
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Campbell
>> To: g. crabtree
>> Cc: Shelley Roderick ; Wayne Price ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
>>
>> 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 Ki 
>>> ller: 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 15 
>>> 0,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respira 
>>> tory 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 los 
>>> t 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 lon 
>>> ger a public                  health problem for our nation.” Th 
>>> e two-pronged strategy for achieving this goal includes not only 
>>>  strengthening and fully implementing currently proven tobacco c 
>>> ontrol measures, but also changing the regulatory landscape to p 
>>> ermit 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 v 
>>> ariety of government agencies, professional and voluntary organi 
>>> zations, and academic institutions have joined together to advan 
>>> ce this approach, which involves the following activities:
>>> Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
>>>
>>> Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
>>>
>>> Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
>>>
>>> Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
>>> Essential elements of this approach include state-based, community- 
>>> based, and health system-based interventions; cessation services;  
>>> counter marketing; policy development and implementation;  
>>> surveillance; and evaluation. These activities target groups who  
>>> are at highest risk for tobacco-related health problems.
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>
>>>
>>> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite  
>>> sports pics. Check it out.
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release Date:  
>>> 07/23/09 18:00:00
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:  
>>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:  
>>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:  
>>> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> <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/20090726/2de00062/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list