<!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>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">vision2020@moscow.com</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
<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"
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"
ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>><BR>>
To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>><BR>>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
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"
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"
ymailto="mailto:keim153@gmail.com">keim153@gmail.com</A>><BR>>>
To: Garrett Clevenger <<A href="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</A>><BR>>>
Cc: <A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
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>>>>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A></SPAN><BR>>>>
mailto:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></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>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>