[Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
Garrett Clevenger
garrettmc at verizon.net
Wed Jul 22 17:08:20 PDT 2009
Yes, g, I remember that. But the conscience rule was more than about pharmacists. It essentially would prevent people from being fired for not doing their job because of their conscience. Maybe you do agree that the rule was overbroad, but that wasn't the impression I got when we had this discussion back in March.
The questions now are:
Do you think businesses should be regulated regarding the type of toxins they expose people to on their premises?
If it's all about choice, should there be any worker safety regulations at all when those workers can choose not to work in a place that may be unreasonably hazardous?
If a person wants to become a prostitute, should he/she be allowed to make that choice?
Garrett Clevenger
________________________________
From:the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
To:Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>; g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc:vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent:Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:32:06 AM
Subject:Re: [Vision2020] Indoor Air Quality
"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."
You most assuredly do not remember right. I believe
that an employer should be able to hire and fire an employee for any reason what
so ever, no explaination required with very few exceptions. I aslo
believe that if the owner of that same pharmacy decides he doesn't want to sell
a particular product he should not be forced to.
Your argument might hold a little water had an
establishment been a no smoking environment and then changed to allow smoking,
thereby subjecting an unwitting employee to the irritant. As is, the employee
goes in with their eyes wide open.
g
----- Original Message -----
>From:Garrett
> Clevenger
>To:g. crabtree
>Cc:vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent:Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:11
> AM
>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
>>Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.22/2253 - Release
>> Date: 07/21/09 18:02:00
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090722/b0084b26/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list