[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

Wed Jul 22 11:45:44 PDT 2009

If you read my posts, you will see that I support reasonable limitations as opposed to the ban.

 Garrett Clevenger

________________________________
From: Shelley Roderick <cjsnightclub at cableone.net>
To: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>; Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:23:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

There is a huge difference between "reasonable limited" and taken away. 

-------Original Message-------

From: Garrett Clevenger
Date: 7/22/2009 8:11:24 AM
To: g. crabtree
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

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.

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.

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.
 Garrett Clevenger

________________________________
From: g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
To: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>; Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:23:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

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.

g
----- Original Message -----
From: Garrett Clevenger
To: Darrell Keim
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Set indoor air quality standards, and let businesses try to meet them without taking away what may be a vital part of their livelihood.

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 7:01:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Garrett Clevenger<garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
> My point is government regulates nuisances.
You bet it regulates nuisances.  Public nuisances, for the most part.
I am against the gov't coming onto private property and regulating
against behavior that is not generally deemed illegal.  If the gov't
can regulate behavior on your neighbors property, they will soon be
doing the same to you.

Like it or not, smoking is not a criminal behavior.

>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.
Obviously our definition of unreasonable behavior is different.  The
businesses do not force you to enter and breathe the smoke anymore
then they force you to drink.  You make the choice to go into the
smoke filled environment.  Drinking also has very negative secondary
consequences (behavior, driving, birth defects).  By your logic this
should also be banned.  Wait.  We tried that.  Didn't work very well.

> It's an epic struggle trying to regulate businesses. They want the right to
> do whatever.
Businesses don't want the right to do whatever.  They want to be able
to make a profit.  There is a big difference.  If a behavior is
hurting business, they will generally refrain from it.

> 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.
Agreed.  Lets take filling stations as an example.  We all agree it is
bad to pollute our environment with gas spills.  Thus they are
regulated so that certain precautions and remediations are in place.
This law isn't regulating smoking in the business.  A regulating law
would require air cleaners or the like.  This is forbidding it.  Big
difference.

> Of course I have a right to not patronize these businesses. I also have the
> right to expect government to be consistent.
If you expect consistency from the government you are in for a long
wait.  We can work towards it, but our laws are to complex to ever
achieve it.

> If it can regulate what you see
> (boobies) and what you hear (that's up to a cop) it should regulate what you
> breath.
Actually our Gov't does have clean air standards.  They apply to
outdoors.  I.E. the public.  Not to places a person chooses to go.

>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.
And you talk about needing consistency?  Weren't you rather
passionately against the noise ordinance?
The fact that we already have bad laws on the books does not mean we
need more.

> 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...
Actually I'd rather not take a deep breath in a number of the
establishments I've been defending.  I may be against the ban, but
that doesn't mean I like second hand smoke.

>
> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
________________________________
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net             
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/43dea12c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/43dea12c/attachment-0001.jpe 