[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

[Garrett Clevenger]

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.

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.

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.

Free speech trumps the right of smokers. If we can have a draconian noise ordinance, we can have a smoking ban.

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.

Take a deeeeep breath...
 Garrett Clevenger




________________________________
From: Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:49:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

Garrett:

Your points below are so illogical it is almost funny.  Allow me to
address them.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Garrett Clevenger<garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
> Yeah, and you wouldn't have to patronize a nude bar, but that's illegal too.
That's illogical:  Smoking isn't illegal.
> Businesses are regulated precisely because some people will do anything to
> make money.
That's logical and true.
> Do you think it should just be a free-for-all, with no
> regulations what-so-ever?
That's illogical.  This isn't a zero-sum game.  We can and do have
proper regulation of businesses.  I think people should be able to
offer things that are generally considered legal (such as smoking) in
their own businesses.
> I don't think business owners have a right to subject their employees and
> patrons to known contaminants, just like they shouldn't be able to dump
> their crap out the back door for others to deal with.
That's illogical:  Illegal dumping and known contaminants are two
separate issues.  One happens on ones own private property, the other
in a public thoroughfare.
It is also illogical because, of course, businesses don't have a right
to subject people to noxious substances.  That would imply people had
no choice but to subject themselves to those substances.  They do.
They have a choice of where to work and what to patronize.
>
> Garrett Clevenger
>
> ________________________________
> From: Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
> To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:45:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> Since you don't HAVE to patronize it, it seems to me that the business
> owners right to operate their establishment as they see fit trumps all
> other rights.
>
> As I've said before, Welcome to Moscow.  Home of Big Mother.
>
>
>>It seems my right to breath clean air trumps another's right to
>> pollute it, just like my right to quiet trumps the right of the band next
>> door to play loud all night long...
>>
>>
>> Garrett Clevenger
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090721/49d5a8ad/attachment.html