<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 16px; "><div style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; background-color: white; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; color: black; ">My point is government regulates nuisances. Second hand smoke is a nuisance. It is noxious. It's poison. Businesses should not be allowed to expose people to it, and other noxious compounds, unreasonably.<div><br></div><div>It's an epic struggle trying to regulate businesses. They want the right to
do whatever. The people they affect want protection. Regulating smoking is no different than regulating any other crap a business produces as a by-product of its profit.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course I have a right to not patronize these businesses. I also have the right to expect government to be consistent. If it can regulate what you see (boobies) and what you hear (that's up to a cop) it should regulate what you breath. This world would become an ashtray quicker than it would otherwise.</div><div><br></div><div>Free speech trumps the right of smokers. If we can have a draconian noise ordinance, we can have a smoking ban.</div><div><br></div><div>But my initial point was it's not about smoke, its about indoor air quality in general, and I would rather see those regulations than a smoking ban. I agree that, once again, the council didn't put time in to ensuring that this works for more people than it may now.</div><div><br></div><div>Take a
deeeeep breath...</div><div><div> </div>Garrett Clevenger<div><br></div><div style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; "><br><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; "><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">From:</span></b> Darrell Keim <keim153@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">To:</span></b> Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Cc:</span></b> vision2020@moscow.com<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:49:19 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold; ">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality<br></font><br>Garrett:<br><br>Your points below are so illogical it is almost funny. Allow me to<br>address them.<br><br>On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Garrett Clevenger<<a ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br>> Yeah, and you wouldn't have to patronize a nude bar, but that's illegal too.<br>That's illogical: Smoking isn't illegal.<br>> Businesses are regulated precisely because some people will do anything to<br>> make money.<br>That's logical and true.<br>> Do you think it should just be a free-for-all, with no<br>> regulations what-so-ever?<br>That's illogical. This isn't a zero-sum game. We can and do have<br>proper regulation of businesses. I think people should be able to<br>offer things that are generally considered legal (such as smoking) in<br>their own businesses.<br>> I don't think business owners have a right to subject their employees and<br>> patrons to known contaminants, just like they shouldn't be able to dump<br>> their crap out the back door for others to deal with.<br>That's illogical: Illegal dumping and known contaminants are two<br>separate issues. One
happens on ones own private property, the other<br>in a public thoroughfare.<br>It is also illogical because, of course, businesses don't have a right<br>to subject people to noxious substances. That would imply people had<br>no choice but to subject themselves to those substances. They do.<br>They have a choice of where to work and what to patronize.<br>><br>> Garrett Clevenger<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Darrell Keim <<a ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</a>><br>> To: Garrett Clevenger <<a ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</a>><br>> Cc: <a ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:45:08 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality<br>><br>> Since you don't HAVE to patronize it, it seems to me that
the business<br>> owners right to operate their establishment as they see fit trumps all<br>> other rights.<br>><br>> As I've said before, Welcome to Moscow. Home of Big Mother.<br>><br>><br>>>It seems my right to breath clean air trumps another's right to<br>>> pollute it, just like my right to quiet trumps the right of the band next<br>>> door to play loud all night long...<br>>><br>>><br>>> Garrett Clevenger<br>>><br>>> =======================================================<br>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br><span>>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>>> mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>> =======================================================<br>>></div></div></div></div></span></div></div><div
style="position:fixed"></div></div></body></html>