<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your "better example" would have some
validity were smoking and the generation of second hand smoke illegal or
if the fact it were being generated was being concealed from the patrons or the
employees.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When it comes to nonsmoking employees and potential
customers, a better "better example" would be people who build homes next to an
airport and then whine to authorities about the noise. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe
Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@roadrunner.com
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">g. crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=garrettmc@verizon.net href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">Garrett
Clevenger</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:50
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air
Quality</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But this would be true for any danger. If this were a sound argument, it
would equally support a company's "right" to toxic waste! </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>A better example: why can't people build on toxic waste dumps and sell
the houses for super cheap? After all, if folks buy the houses, it is their
choice? We could just say "You didn't have to buy the house!" Problem
solved!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Not that I have a horse in this race -- it seems like a tricky issue and
I feel for the smokers among us. But it does seem as much of a workers' rights
issue as anything else. It seems to be well within the state's rights to
protect workers, whether they want the protection or not.
<BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, "g. crabtree" <<A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Why do you repeatedly use the phrase "have to
breathe" when referring to employees and patrons? Neither of these groups
"have to do any such thing. They can make a rational adult choice and not
frequent the establishment.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=garrettmc@verizon.net href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">Garrett
Clevenger</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=keim153@gmail.com
href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">Darrell Keim</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:24
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air
Quality</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Times">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">The
government does try to regulate behavior on private property. We're
talking about businesses open to the public, though. They can't even sell
alcohol without a permit, and alcohol is legal. Why should they be allowed
to knowingly endanger public health with second hand smoke, when there are
ways to prevent that?</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: black; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If a smoker wants to smoke a carcinogenic and addictive substance,
that's their right, but that doesn't give them the right to pollute the
air others have to breath. It seems reasonable to try to limit the
exposure to second hand smoke, and if businesses won't do it, then
apparently the city feels the need to ban it completely. Since they like
to pass laws without proper consideration, I'm not surprised. Could we
have gotten a better written law? Yes.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Second hand smoke should be a regulated hazardous substance. You know
they use nicotine bombs in greenhouses to kill the pests? Granted that's
concentrated, but cigarettes also contain numerous other chemicals, from
pesticides to preservatives, making that smoke even more toxic. Not only
is it bad for people to breath, it destroys whatever may be in the room.
Replacing a pair of speakers is not cheap, but things will wear out
quicker in a smokey bar than a non-smokey one.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Obviously drinking too much alcohol can be even worse. Bars will cut
overly drunk people off to try to prevent accidents (and not be liable)
People who go to a bar can choose not to drink. I'm not advocating
prohibition and I'm not advocating banning smoking. I like beer too much
and people will smoke anyway. But while being in a room full of drunk
people may be annoying, if there's smoke, it's even worse as that smoke is
unavoidable and extremely irritating to some people. Those smokers took
that choice away. Their only real choice is to leave, but that still
doesn't address the overall problems caused by second hand smoke.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Maybe you know more about the clean air standards, but I imagine they
apply to places where people go. Do businesses have the right to have any
contaminants that might be present? That would seem like a violation of
some type of law, but maybe you are saying there is a free-for-all,
buyer-beware. If indoor air quality is a concern for the government in
general, it seems like second-hand smoke should be on that list.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Like I said before, I'm not a supporter of the law that was passed.
They should have at least given it three votes to get more public
feedback. But I'm not as against this law as the noise ordinance, which
affects our first amendment right. Where were you when the city passed
that? I'll admit I may not be super consistent, but I will definitely
stand up for protection of free speech rights over the right of a business
to pollute the air its employees and patrons have to breath.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Bars can have better ventilation systems and reduce areas where
people can smoke, and Les Schwab can put their tires in a room where
people aren't working all day. Walmart should be ventilating their air
better, as a room that size full of brand new plastics and questionable
Chinese products should be suspicious to people who are aware that there
are some nasty chemicals that build up indoors that you should not be
breathing on a regular basis.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Obviously not all businesses will "do whatever" but enough will do
things they shouldn't to make a buck. To not regulate businesses, and
expect them to be angels, seems naive. Protecting people's health will
save society money in the long run, and reduce the chances of people
suffering disease from the indoor air they breath.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Set indoor air quality standards, and let businesses try to meet them
without taking away what may be a vital part of their livelihood.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Garrett Clevenger
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif"><BR>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Darrell Keim
<<A
href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Garrett Clevenger <<A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, July 21, 2009
7:01:06 PM<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Vision2020] Indoor
Air Quality<BR></FONT><BR>On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Garrett
Clevenger<<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A></A>>
wrote:<BR>> My point is government regulates nuisances.<BR>You bet it
regulates nuisances. Public nuisances, for the most part.<BR>I am
against the gov't coming onto private property and regulating<BR>against
behavior that is not generally deemed illegal. If the gov't<BR>can
regulate behavior on your neighbors property, they will soon be<BR>doing
the same to you.<BR><BR>Like it or not, smoking is not a criminal
behavior.<BR><BR>>Second hand smoke is a nuisance.<BR>> It is
noxious. It's poison. Businesses should not be allowed to expose<BR>>
people to it, and other noxious compounds, unreasonably.<BR>Obviously our
definition of unreasonable behavior is different. The<BR>businesses
do not force you to enter and breathe the smoke anymore<BR>then they force
you to drink. You make the choice to go into the<BR>smoke filled
environment. Drinking also has very negative
secondary<BR>consequences (behavior, driving, birth defects). By
your logic this<BR>should also be banned. Wait. We tried
that. Didn't work very well.<BR><BR>> It's an epic struggle
trying to regulate businesses. They want the right to<BR>> do
whatever.<BR>Businesses don't want the right to do whatever. They
want to be able<BR>to make a profit. There is a big
difference. If a behavior is<BR>hurting business, they will
generally refrain from it.<BR><BR>> The people they affect want
protection. Regulating smoking is<BR>> no different than regulating any
other crap a business produces as a<BR>> by-product of its
profit.<BR>Agreed. Lets take filling stations as an example.
We all agree it is<BR>bad to pollute our environment with gas
spills. Thus they are<BR>regulated so that certain precautions and
remediations are in place.<BR>This law isn't regulating smoking in the
business. A regulating law<BR>would require air cleaners or the
like. This is forbidding it. Big<BR>difference.<BR><BR>> Of
course I have a right to not patronize these businesses. I also have
the<BR>> right to expect government to be consistent.<BR>If you expect
consistency from the government you are in for a long<BR>wait. We
can work towards it, but our laws are to complex to ever<BR>achieve
it.<BR><BR>> If it can regulate what you see<BR>> (boobies) and what
you hear (that's up to a cop) it should regulate what you<BR>>
breath.<BR>Actually our Gov't does have clean air standards. They
apply to<BR>outdoors. I.E. the public. Not to places a person
chooses to go.<BR><BR>>This world would become an ashtray quicker than
it would otherwise.<BR>> Free speech trumps the right of smokers. If we
can have a draconian noise<BR>> ordinance, we can have a smoking
ban.<BR>And you talk about needing consistency? Weren't you
rather<BR>passionately against the noise ordinance?<BR>The fact that we
already have bad laws on the books does not mean we<BR>need
more.<BR><BR>> But my initial point was it's not about smoke, its about
indoor air quality<BR>> in general, and I would rather see those
regulations than a smoking ban. I<BR>> agree that, once again, the
council didn't put time in to ensuring that this<BR>> works for more
people than it may now.<BR>> Take a deeeeep breath...<BR>Actually I'd
rather not take a deep breath in a number of the<BR>establishments I've
been defending. I may be against the ban, but<BR>that doesn't mean I
like second hand smoke.<BR><BR>><BR>> Garrett
Clevenger<BR>><BR>> ________________________________<BR>>
From: Darrell Keim <<A href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com"><A
href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A></A>><BR>>
To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A></A>><BR>>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:49:19 PM<BR>> Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality<BR>><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 href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A></A>><BR>>
wrote:<BR>>> Yeah, and you wouldn't have to patronize a nude bar,
but that's illegal<BR>>> 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 href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com"><A
href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A></A>><BR>>>
To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"><A
href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A></A>><BR>>>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></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 href="http://www.fsr.net" target=_blank><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A></SPAN><BR>>>>
mailto:<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="POSITION: fixed"></DIV></DIV>
<P></P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet, </SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.22/2253 - Release
Date: 07/21/09 18:02:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>