[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