<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>DIV {
MARGIN: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>You wanted to
take away the right of an employer to be able to terminate people who don't do
their job, if I remember right."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You most assuredly do not remember right. I believe
that an employer should be able to hire and fire an employee for any reason what
so ever, no explaination required with very few exceptions. I aslo
believe that if the owner of that same pharmacy decides he doesn't want to sell
a particular product he should not be forced to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your argument might hold a little water had an
establishment been a no smoking environment and then changed to allow smoking,
thereby subjecting an unwitting employee to the irritant. As is, the employee
goes in with their eyes wide open.</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=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> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:11
AM</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"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="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">You
mean like a person who you want to protect with a "conscience rule" who has a
choice not to work at a place that performs abortions? You wanted to take away
the right of an employer to be able to terminate people who don't do their
job, if I remember right.
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">I don't think employers have the right to knowingly
and unreasonably expose workers and patrons to hazardous compounds, despite
any choice a person has from avoiding exposure.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">Farmers have to take precautions to not expose people
to pesticides, despite what they deem as a need to spray. It seems that any
workplace should have hazards reasonably limited.</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"> </DIV>Garrett Clevenger
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif"><BR>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif"><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> g. crabtree
<jampot@roadrunner.com><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Garrett Clevenger
<garrettmc@verizon.net>; Darrell Keim
<keim153@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> vision2020@moscow.com<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wednesday, July 22, 2009
6:23:06 AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re:
[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message
-----</DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial"><B>From:</B> <A
title=garrettmc@verizon.net href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">Garrett
Clevenger</A></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=keim153@gmail.com href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com" target=_blank
rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">Darrell Keim</A></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July
21, 2009 10:24 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-FAMILY: Times">
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0px; 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; MARGIN: 0px; 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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">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 style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px">Garrett Clevenger
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif"><BR>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0px; 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
<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
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" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</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" target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>><BR>>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</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" target=_blank
rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</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" target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>
To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>><BR>>>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="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><SPAN>>>>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A></SPAN></SPAN><BR>>>>
mailto:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"></DIV></DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0px"></P>
<HR>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0px"></P>=======================================================<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>http://www.fsr.net </A> </SPAN> <BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN>
<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></DIV>
<DIV style="POSITION: fixed"></DIV></DIV>
<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>