<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="IncrediMail 1.0">
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml)
}
</STYLE>
<style>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml)
}
</style>
<!--IncrdiXMLRemarkStart>
<IncrdiX-Info>
<X-FID>79F8FDE2-E90C-4120-9A2C-E484CCFAA091</X-FID>
<X-FVER></X-FVER>
<X-FIT></X-FIT>
<X-FILE></X-FILE>
<X-FCOL></X-FCOL>
<X-FCAT></X-FCAT>
<X-FDIS></X-FDIS>
<X-Extensions></X-Extensions>
<X-BG>cid:5860C261-B8E4-4CCD-B23C-C88540F7111C</X-BG>
<X-BGT>repeat</X-BGT>
<X-BGC>#f3eded</X-BGC>
<X-BGPX>left</X-BGPX>
<X-BGPY>top</X-BGPY>
<X-ASN>BCEB29C0-42D3-11D4-BA3E-0050DAC68030</X-ASN>
<X-ASNF>0</X-ASNF>
<X-ASH>BCEB29C0-42D3-11D4-BA3E-0050DAC68030</X-ASH>
<X-ASHF>1</X-ASHF>
<X-AN>A5BE2A00-37CC-11D4-BA36-0050DAC68030</X-AN>
<X-ANF>0</X-ANF>
<X-AP>A5BE2A00-37CC-11D4-BA36-0050DAC68030</X-AP>
<X-APF>1</X-APF>
<X-AD>601231A0-325F-11D4-BA2D-0050DAC68030</X-AD>
<X-ADF>0</X-ADF>
<X-AUTO>X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD</X-AUTO>
<X-CNT>;</X-CNT>
</IncrdiX-Info>
<IncrdiXMLRemarkEnd-->
</HEAD>
<BODY style="SCROLLBAR-ARROW-COLOR: #4a6184; SCROLLBAR-FACE-COLOR: #c6d7ff; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px; BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat; SCROLLBAR-DARKSHADOW-COLOR: #bebebe; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left top; SCROLLBAR-HIGHLIGHT-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #010158; SCROLLBAR-SHADOW-COLOR: #ffffff; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; SCROLLBAR-3DLIGHT-COLOR: #7b9ed6" background=cid:5860C261-B8E4-4CCD-B23C-C88540F7111C aLink=#0000ff scroll=yes link=#0000ff bgColor=#f3eded text=#010158 vLink=#0000ff SIGCOLOR="11031552">
<TABLE id=INCREDIMAINTABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="DIRECTION: ltr; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" dir=ltr id=INCREDITEXTREGION vAlign=top width="100%">
<DIV>
<DIV><EM>"Same thing in each case, that there should be NO restrictions on sales</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Of any kind as long as choice and full disclosure are present. That</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>View is at least consistent but it strikes me as absurd and dangerous."</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV>Joe - may I ask why it "strikes you as absurd and dangerous?" A person has a right to choose. As a person has a right to liberty. People today live in homes that have asbestos. They live in homes that have been built on dumps.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Phil</DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr id=IncrediOriginalMessage><I>-------Original Message-------</I></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=receivestrings>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" dir=ltr><I><B>From:</B></I> <A href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" dir=ltr><I><B>Date:</B></I> 7/22/2009 1:40:27 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" dir=ltr><I><B>To:</B></I> <A href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</A>; <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt" dir=ltr><I><B>Subject:</B></I> Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ALL laws are such that at one time they were not illegal before the</DIV>
<DIV>"meddling" of government officials. There are NO laws that have been</DIV>
<DIV>on the books forever. This is no more relevant to the issue of whether</DIV>
<DIV>or not something SHOULD be legal or illegal than the fact that it IS</DIV>
<DIV>legal or illegal.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The main point of the example is that individual choice has its</DIV>
<DIV>limits. We could change the example to selling land on nuclear dump</DIV>
<DIV>sites or selling the property of victims who have recently died from</DIV>
<DIV>contagious diseases or whatever. Your view commits you to saying the</DIV>
<DIV>same thing in each case, that there should be NO restrictions on sales</DIV>
<DIV>of any kind as long as choice and full disclosure are present. That</DIV>
<DIV>view is at least consistent but it strikes me as absurd and dangerous.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is the secondhand smoke problem as worrisome as the above cases? Of</DIV>
<DIV>course not. I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments against</DIV>
<DIV>the new anti-smoking law are not very good; choice and full disclosure</DIV>
<DIV>are not the only things that matter. Safety of others is important,</DIV>
<DIV>too. The current case is more difficult than some of the council</DIV>
<DIV>critics are willing to admit since it involves a CONFLICT of rights</DIV>
<DIV>(of sorts).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And Bear, I'm not the opposition. I'm just a guy pointing out a bad</DIV>
<DIV>argument. If it were up to me -- were I a council member -- I would</DIV>
<DIV>not have voted for the new law. I'm genuinely torn about the issue and</DIV>
<DIV>I think it is much more complex, more difficult than either side will</DIV>
<DIV>admit. It seems too complex for such a quick decision.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM, the lockshop<<A href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>> Wrong on both counts.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> I wasn't illegal before the councils meddling, as the law always exempted</DIV>
<DIV>> bars and private clubs. (the State giving a nod to the notion of private</DIV>
<DIV>> property and the acts of volition)</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Also I believe that one should be able to purchase property that had</DIV>
<DIV>> formerly been a toxic waste site as long as the fact has been disclosed.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> My example stands as in both cases the secondhand smoke and the jet noise</DIV>
<DIV>> were in place first and had to be sought out by those who would complain</DIV>
<DIV>> about it. In both cases the problem would not exist if the would be whiners</DIV>
<DIV>> would simply go somewhere else more to their liking rather then to search</DIV>
<DIV>> out a situation they found unpleasant and demand their whims be accomadated.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> g</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ----- Original Message -----</DIV>
<DIV>> From: Joe Campbell</DIV>
<DIV>> To: the lockshop</DIV>
<DIV>> Cc: g. crabtree ; <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>> ; Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:47 AM</DIV>
<DIV>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV>> The debate is about what should or should not be a law, not about what is</DIV>
<DIV>> law. If what is the law matters, then you loose since now it is illegal to</DIV>
<DIV>> smoke in doors. Obviously this does not matter much when it comes to the</DIV>
<DIV>> question of whether it should or shouldn't be illegal. That is the debate.</DIV>
<DIV>> I take it that you think it should be illegal to sell folks houses built on</DIV>
<DIV>> a toxic waste dump even if they wanted to buy the land of their own free</DIV>
<DIV>> will. Why, given your last argument? That is the question.</DIV>
<DIV>> Your example is flawed since annoyance is not physical harm. Secondhand</DIV>
<DIV>> smoke causes physical harm to others; airport noise does not.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:52 PM, "the lockshop" <<A href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Your "better example" would have some validity were smoking and the</DIV>
<DIV>> generation of second hand smoke illegal or if the fact it were being</DIV>
<DIV>> generated was being concealed from the patrons or the employees.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> When it comes to nonsmoking employees and potential customers, a better</DIV>
<DIV>> "better example" would be people who build homes next to an airport and</DIV>
<DIV>> then whine to authorities about the noise.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> g</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ----- Original Message -----</DIV>
<DIV>> From: Joe Campbell</DIV>
<DIV>> To: g. crabtree</DIV>
<DIV>> Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:50 AM</DIV>
<DIV>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV>> But this would be true for any danger. If this were a sound argument, it</DIV>
<DIV>> would equally support a company's "right" to toxic waste!</DIV>
<DIV>> A better example: why can't people build on toxic waste dumps and sell the</DIV>
<DIV>> houses for super cheap? After all, if folks buy the houses, it is their</DIV>
<DIV>> choice? We could just say "You didn't have to buy the house!" Problem</DIV>
<DIV>> solved!</DIV>
<DIV>> Not that I have a horse in this race -- it seems like a tricky issue and I</DIV>
<DIV>> feel for the smokers among us. But it does seem as much of a workers' rights</DIV>
<DIV>> issue as anything else. It seems to be well within the state's rights to</DIV>
<DIV>> protect workers, whether they want the protection or not.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV>> On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, "g. crabtree" <<A href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">jampot@roadrunner.com</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Why do you repeatedly use the phrase "have to breathe" when referring to</DIV>
<DIV>> employees and patrons? Neither of these groups "have to do any such thing.</DIV>
<DIV>> They can make a rational adult choice and not frequent the establishment.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> g</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ----- Original Message -----</DIV>
<DIV>> From: Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>> To: Darrell Keim</DIV>
<DIV>> Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:24 PM</DIV>
<DIV>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV>> The government does try to regulate behavior on private property. We're</DIV>
<DIV>> talking about businesses open to the public, though. They can't even sell</DIV>
<DIV>> alcohol without a permit, and alcohol is legal. Why should they be allowed</DIV>
<DIV>> to knowingly endanger public health with second hand smoke, when there are</DIV>
<DIV>> ways to prevent that?</DIV>
<DIV>> If a smoker wants to smoke a carcinogenic and addictive substance, that's</DIV>
<DIV>> their right, but that doesn't give them the right to pollute the air others</DIV>
<DIV>> have to breath. It seems reasonable to try to limit the exposure to second</DIV>
<DIV>> hand smoke, and if businesses won't do it, then apparently the city feels</DIV>
<DIV>> the need to ban it completely. Since they like to pass laws without proper</DIV>
<DIV>> consideration, I'm not surprised. Could we have gotten a better written law?</DIV>
<DIV>> Yes.</DIV>
<DIV>> Second hand smoke should be a regulated hazardous substance. You know they</DIV>
<DIV>> use nicotine bombs in greenhouses to kill the pests? Granted that's</DIV>
<DIV>> concentrated, but cigarettes also contain numerous other chemicals, from</DIV>
<DIV>> pesticides to preservatives, making that smoke even more toxic. Not only is</DIV>
<DIV>> it bad for people to breath, it destroys whatever may be in the room.</DIV>
<DIV>> Replacing a pair of speakers is not cheap, but things will wear out quicker</DIV>
<DIV>> in a smokey bar than a non-smokey one.</DIV>
<DIV>> Obviously drinking too much alcohol can be even worse. Bars will cut overly</DIV>
<DIV>> drunk people off to try to prevent accidents (and not be liable) People who</DIV>
<DIV>> go to a bar can choose not to drink. I'm not advocating prohibition and I'm</DIV>
<DIV>> not advocating banning smoking. I like beer too much and people will smoke</DIV>
<DIV>> anyway. But while being in a room full of drunk people may be annoying, if</DIV>
<DIV>> there's smoke, it's even worse as that smoke is unavoidable and extremely</DIV>
<DIV>> irritating to some people. Those smokers took that choice away. Their only</DIV>
<DIV>> real choice is to leave, but that still doesn't address the overall problems</DIV>
<DIV>> caused by second hand smoke.</DIV>
<DIV>> Maybe you know more about the clean air standards, but I imagine they apply</DIV>
<DIV>> to places where people go. Do businesses have the right to have any</DIV>
<DIV>> contaminants that might be present? That would seem like a violation of some</DIV>
<DIV>> type of law, but maybe you are saying there is a free-for-all, buyer-beware.</DIV>
<DIV>> If indoor air quality is a concern for the government in general, it seems</DIV>
<DIV>> like second-hand smoke should be on that list.</DIV>
<DIV>> Like I said before, I'm not a supporter of the law that was passed. They</DIV>
<DIV>> should have at least given it three votes to get more public feedback. But</DIV>
<DIV>> I'm not as against this law as the noise ordinance, which affects our first</DIV>
<DIV>> amendment right. Where were you when the city passed that? I'll admit I may</DIV>
<DIV>> not be super consistent, but I will definitely stand up for protection of</DIV>
<DIV>> free speech rights over the right of a business to pollute the air its</DIV>
<DIV>> employees and patrons have to breath.</DIV>
<DIV>> Bars can have better ventilation systems and reduce areas where people can</DIV>
<DIV>> smoke, and Les Schwab can put their tires in a room where people aren't</DIV>
<DIV>> working all day. Walmart should be ventilating their air better, as a room</DIV>
<DIV>> that size full of brand new plastics and questionable Chinese products</DIV>
<DIV>> should be suspicious to people who are aware that there are some nasty</DIV>
<DIV>> chemicals that build up indoors that you should not be breathing on a</DIV>
<DIV>> regular basis.</DIV>
<DIV>> Obviously not all businesses will "do whatever" but enough will do things</DIV>
<DIV>> they shouldn't to make a buck. To not regulate businesses, and expect them</DIV>
<DIV>> to be angels, seems naive. Protecting people's health will save society</DIV>
<DIV>> money in the long run, and reduce the chances of people suffering disease</DIV>
<DIV>> from the indoor air they breath.</DIV>
<DIV>> Set indoor air quality standards, and let businesses try to meet them</DIV>
<DIV>> without taking away what may be a vital part of their livelihood.</DIV>
<DIV>> Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>> From: Darrell Keim <<A href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>> To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="mailto:Cc: vision2020@moscow.com">Cc: vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:01:06 PM</DIV>
<DIV>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Garrett Clevenger<<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>>> My point is government regulates nuisances.</DIV>
<DIV>> You bet it regulates nuisances. Public nuisances, for the most part.</DIV>
<DIV>> I am against the gov't coming onto private property and regulating</DIV>
<DIV>> against behavior that is not generally deemed illegal. If the gov't</DIV>
<DIV>> can regulate behavior on your neighbors property, they will soon be</DIV>
<DIV>> doing the same to you.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> Like it or not, smoking is not a criminal behavior.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>>Second hand smoke is a nuisance.</DIV>
<DIV>>> It is noxious. It's poison. Businesses should not be allowed to expose</DIV>
<DIV>>> people to it, and other noxious compounds, unreasonably.</DIV>
<DIV>> Obviously our definition of unreasonable behavior is different. The</DIV>
<DIV>> businesses do not force you to enter and breathe the smoke anymore</DIV>
<DIV>> then they force you to drink. You make the choice to go into the</DIV>
<DIV>> smoke filled environment. Drinking also has very negative secondary</DIV>
<DIV>> consequences (behavior, driving, birth defects). By your logic this</DIV>
<DIV>> should also be banned. Wait. We tried that. Didn't work very well.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>> It's an epic struggle trying to regulate businesses. They want the right</DIV>
<DIV>>> to</DIV>
<DIV>>> do whatever.</DIV>
<DIV>> Businesses don't want the right to do whatever. They want to be able</DIV>
<DIV>> to make a profit. There is a big difference. If a behavior is</DIV>
<DIV>> hurting business, they will generally refrain from it.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>> The people they affect want protection. Regulating smoking is</DIV>
<DIV>>> no different than regulating any other crap a business produces as a</DIV>
<DIV>>> by-product of its profit.</DIV>
<DIV>> Agreed. Lets take filling stations as an example. We all agree it is</DIV>
<DIV>> bad to pollute our environment with gas spills. Thus they are</DIV>
<DIV>> regulated so that certain precautions and remediations are in place.</DIV>
<DIV>> This law isn't regulating smoking in the business. A regulating law</DIV>
<DIV>> would require air cleaners or the like. This is forbidding it. Big</DIV>
<DIV>> difference.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>> Of course I have a right to not patronize these businesses. I also have</DIV>
<DIV>>> the</DIV>
<DIV>>> right to expect government to be consistent.</DIV>
<DIV>> If you expect consistency from the government you are in for a long</DIV>
<DIV>> wait. We can work towards it, but our laws are to complex to ever</DIV>
<DIV>> achieve it.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>> If it can regulate what you see</DIV>
<DIV>>> (boobies) and what you hear (that's up to a cop) it should regulate what</DIV>
<DIV>>> you</DIV>
<DIV>>> breath.</DIV>
<DIV>> Actually our Gov't does have clean air standards. They apply to</DIV>
<DIV>> outdoors. I.E. the public. Not to places a person chooses to go.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>>This world would become an ashtray quicker than it would otherwise.</DIV>
<DIV>>> Free speech trumps the right of smokers. If we can have a draconian noise</DIV>
<DIV>>> ordinance, we can have a smoking ban.</DIV>
<DIV>> And you talk about needing consistency? Weren't you rather</DIV>
<DIV>> passionately against the noise ordinance?</DIV>
<DIV>> The fact that we already have bad laws on the books does not mean we</DIV>
<DIV>> need more.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>> But my initial point was it's not about smoke, its about indoor air</DIV>
<DIV>>> quality</DIV>
<DIV>>> in general, and I would rather see those regulations than a smoking ban. I</DIV>
<DIV>>> agree that, once again, the council didn't put time in to ensuring that</DIV>
<DIV>>> this</DIV>
<DIV>>> works for more people than it may now.</DIV>
<DIV>>> Take a deeeeep breath...</DIV>
<DIV>> Actually I'd rather not take a deep breath in a number of the</DIV>
<DIV>> establishments I've been defending. I may be against the ban, but</DIV>
<DIV>> that doesn't mean I like second hand smoke.</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>>></DIV>
<DIV>>> Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>>></DIV>
<DIV>>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>>> From: Darrell Keim <<A href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>>> To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>>> <A href="mailto:Cc: vision2020@moscow.com">Cc: vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:49:19 PM</DIV>
<DIV>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV>>></DIV>
<DIV>>> Garrett:</DIV>
<DIV>>></DIV>
<DIV>>> Your points below are so illogical it is almost funny. Allow me to</DIV>
<DIV>>> address them.</DIV>
<DIV>>></DIV>
<DIV>>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Garrett Clevenger<<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV>>>> Yeah, and you wouldn't have to patronize a nude bar, but that's illegal</DIV>
<DIV>>>> too.</DIV>
<DIV>>> That's illogical: Smoking isn't illegal.</DIV>
<DIV>>>> Businesses are regulated precisely because some people will do anything</DIV>
<DIV>>>> to</DIV>
<DIV>>>> make money.</DIV>
<DIV>>> That's logical and true.</DIV>
<DIV>>>> Do you think it should just be a free-for-all, with no</DIV>
<DIV>>>> regulations what-so-ever?</DIV>
<DIV>>> That's illogical. This isn't a zero-sum game. We can and do have</DIV>
<DIV>>> proper regulation of businesses. I think people should be able to</DIV>
<DIV>>> offer things that are generally considered legal (such as smoking) in</DIV>
<DIV>>> their own businesses.</DIV>
<DIV>>>> I don't think business owners have a right to subject their employees and</DIV>
<DIV>>>> patrons to known contaminants, just like they shouldn't be able to dump</DIV>
<DIV>>>> their crap out the back door for others to deal with.</DIV>
<DIV>>> That's illogical: Illegal dumping and known contaminants are two</DIV>
<DIV>>> separate issues. One happens on ones own private property, the other</DIV>
<DIV>>> in a public thoroughfare.</DIV>
<DIV>>> It is also illogical because, of course, businesses don't have a right</DIV>
<DIV>>> to subject people to noxious substances. That would imply people had</DIV>
<DIV>>> no choice but to subject themselves to those substances. They do.</DIV>
<DIV>>> They have a choice of where to work and what to patronize.</DIV>
<DIV>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>> Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>>>> From: Darrell Keim <<A href="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>>>> To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>>>> <A href="mailto:Cc: vision2020@moscow.com">Cc: vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:45:08 PM</DIV>
<DIV>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality</DIV>
<DIV>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>> Since you don't HAVE to patronize it, it seems to me that the business</DIV>
<DIV>>>> owners right to operate their establishment as they see fit trumps all</DIV>
<DIV>>>> other rights.</DIV>
<DIV>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>> As I've said before, Welcome to Moscow. Home of Big Mother.</DIV>
<DIV>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>>>It seems my right to breath clean air trumps another's right to</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> pollute it, just like my right to quiet trumps the right of the band</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> next</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> door to play loud all night long...</DIV>
<DIV>>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>>> Garrett Clevenger</DIV>
<DIV>>>>></DIV>
<DIV>>>>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</DIV>
<DIV>>>>> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>>>>> <A href="mailto: mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>>>>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>>>>></DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>> List services made available by First Step Internet,</DIV>
<DIV>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>> List services made available by First Step Internet,</DIV>
<DIV>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="mailto: mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>> List services made available by First Step Internet,</DIV>
<DIV>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></DIV>
<DIV>> <A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> =======================================================</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> No virus found in this incoming message.</DIV>
<DIV>> Checked by AVG - <A href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.22/2253 - Release Date: 07/21/09</DIV>
<DIV>> 18:02:00</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> ________________________________</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV>> No virus found in this incoming message.</DIV>
<DIV>> Checked by AVG - <A href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.23/2254 - Release Date: 07/22/09</DIV>
<DIV>> 05:59:00</DIV>
<DIV>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>=======================================================</DIV>
<DIV> List services made available by First Step Internet,</DIV>
<DIV> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</DIV>
<DIV> <A href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> <A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>=======================================================</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD id=INCREDIFOOTER width="100%">
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width="100%"></TD>
<TD id=INCREDISOUND vAlign=bottom align=middle></TD>
<TD id=INCREDIANIM vAlign=bottom align=middle></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SPAN id=IncrediStamp><A href="http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109094&rui=104732867"><SPAN name="imgCache" border="0"><IMG border=0 alt="FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here! " src="cid:571AD749-374A-4058-A07C-0AC8654BEAC4"></SPAN></A></SPAN></BODY></HTML>