[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
Wayne Price
bear at moscow.com
Wed Jul 22 15:53:51 PDT 2009
Phil,
Personally, I think that the councils tacit approval of peeing in the
pool far worse than second hand smoke! *S*
On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Shelley Roderick wrote:
> Didn't John Weber ask that there be a smoking area inside that was
> walled off and with negative air? The rest of the council basically
> Po pooed on John and all laughed at the comment of the "peeing in
> the pool." That was the downfall of the smoking room. Remember -
> John did vote for the ban in the end. He did have a choice.
>
> Phil
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Joe Campbell
> Date: 7/22/2009 1:56:17 PM
> To: Wayne Price
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> Bear,
>
> I'm in full agreement that Bucer's is a great example of the kind of
> solution that should work; too bad the new law doesn't allow for it.
> That was a huge mistake, not to give folks some wiggle room to allow
> for something like that.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> Good question, but maybe that should have been addressed by the Gang
> of 7 before they acted on the anniversary of the attempt on their
> role models life in 1944!
>
> Personally, the enclosed and vented smoking area at Buccer's is
> actually a GREAT example of just how a "smoking area" should work,
> but rather than look at a good example and give bar and club owners
> the choice,
> the Gang of 7 decided that they know better. I hope the political
> lobbyests that they kow-towed to from Boise come to their help on
> November, or maybe that is the quid-pro-quo!
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:28 PM, TIM RIGSBY wrote:
>
> Riddle me this...
>
> Why has Bucer's been allowed to break Idaho Law since the 2004
> passage of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act?
>
> They are not a bar, they are a restaurant by state definition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:52:44 -0700
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> I wasn't illegal before the councils meddling, as the law always
> exempted bars and private clubs. (the State giving a nod to the
> notion of private property and the acts of volition)
>
> Also I believe that one should be able to purchase property that had
> formerly been a toxic waste site as long as the fact has been
> disclosed.
>
> My example stands as in both cases the secondhand smoke and the jet
> noise were in place first and had to be sought out by those who
> would complain about it. In both cases the problem would not exist
> if the would be whiners would simply go somewhere else more to their
> liking rather then to search out a situation they found unpleasant
> and demand their whims be accomadated.
>
> g
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: g. crabtree ; <vision2020 at moscow.com> ; Garrett Clevenger
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> The debate is about what should or should not be a law, not about
> what is law. If what is the law matters, then you loose since now it
> is illegal to smoke in doors. Obviously this does not matter much
> when it comes to the question of whether it should or shouldn't be
> illegal. That is the debate.
>
> I take it that you think it should be illegal to sell folks houses
> built on a toxic waste dump even if they wanted to buy the land of
> their own free will. Why, given your last argument? That is the
> question.
>
> Your example is flawed since annoyance is not physical harm.
> Secondhand smoke causes physical harm to others; airport noise does
> not.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:52 PM, "the lockshop"
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
> Your "better example" would have some validity were smoking and the
> generation of second hand smoke illegal or if the fact it were being
> generated was being concealed from the patrons or the employees.
>
> When it comes to nonsmoking employees and potential customers, a
> better "better example" would be people who build homes next to an
> airport and then whine to authorities about the noise.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: g. crabtree
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Garrett Clevenger
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
>
> But this would be true for any danger. If this were a sound
> argument, it would equally support a company's "right" to toxic waste!
>
> A better example: why can't people build on toxic waste dumps and
> sell the houses for super cheap? After all, if folks buy the houses,
> it is their choice? We could just say "You didn't have to buy the
> house!" Problem solved!
>
> Not that I have a horse in this race -- it seems like a tricky issue
> and I feel for the smokers among us. But it does seem as much of a
> workers' rights issue as anything else. It seems to be well within
> the state's rights to protect workers, whether they want the
> protection or not.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 9:23 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.22/2253 - Release Date:
> 07/21/09 18:02:00
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.23/2254 - Release Date:
> 07/22/09 05:59:00
>
> NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here.
> =======================================================
> 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
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> <imstp_animation_monkey_en_020908.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/3eb8768b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list