[Vision2020] Public Smoking

[Joe Campbell]

They'll have to explain that and a few other things!

Joe Campbell

On Jun 21, 2009, at 9:57 AM, bear at moscow.com wrote:

> Joe,
>
> I agree that the council will most likely pass the legislation,  
> otherwise
> why would they have had the Eagle Idaho legislation BEFORE the  
> concerned
> citizen ever got up to speak? I don't have any hope that they are  
> looking
> for an alternative, as passing regulatory legislation is the easy  
> way for
> most politicians.
>
> It's all a mater of control as I see it and the solution will be at
> election time. For instance, do you not think that two of the local
> luminaries will have to explain why they needed city funds to fight a
> citizen request for e-mails under the open records act when they  
> come up
> for re-election?
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I agree that laws should be avoided when possible. But that suggests
>> another solution, which first requires that one sees that there is a
>> problem.
>>
>> I don't see why you expert market forces to change anything. They
>> haven't done it so far. Again this "solution" suggests that there is
>> no problem to begin with.
>>
>> And maybe there isn't! But in the end it doesn't matter what you or I
>> think. It matters what the council and mayor think. I wouldn't be
>> surprised to find them sympathetic to a ban. I'm not saying I expect
>> it but it wouldn't surprise me. Unless of course they find a better
>> solution. I'm pretty convinced that most of them do think it is a
>> problem.
>>
>> Joe Campbell
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2009, at 9:07 AM, bear at moscow.com wrote:
>>
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> My point has always been, and still is, we don't need a local law.  
>>> The
>>> market forces will make the necessary changes if they need to take
>>> place.
>>> People can make choices IF THEY HAVE THEM. What this local  
>>> legislation
>>> will do is take away choice.
>>>
>>> In this case, if you don't want to service equipment in a smoking
>>> establishment, don't.
>>> If you don't like smoke in an establishment, then don't go there.
>>> If you don't like smoke in an establishment, don't work there.
>>>
>>> BUT, it boils down to choice.
>>>
>>> What I've heard on here is that folks want the benefits of these
>>> establishments, but want it their way, not the way the owners of the
>>> establishments have set them up and run them.
>>> They have a choice.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Bear,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a regulator. I'm not sure what side to take in this issue
>>>> since I see good arguments on both sides. But I can't help but
>>>> comment
>>>> when I see a bad argument and the "choice" argument promoted by you
>>>> and Kai and others strikes me as a bad argument. If it were a good
>>>> argument, it would work against government regulation of any kind  
>>>> but
>>>> it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 2009, at 8:36 AM, bear at moscow.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kai,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a feeling that nothing we can say, or even try to enter
>>>>> into a
>>>>> discussion where alternatives, will please the "Regulators"!
>>>>>
>>>>> They will find all sorts of "straw men" to throw out, like the
>>>>> service
>>>>> persons having to come in (they aren't forced to fix equipment by
>>>>> the
>>>>> way), and I love the insurance argument!  How many waiters and
>>>>> waitresses
>>>>> even get insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many dangers in every occupation, and they have a  
>>>>> CHOICE.
>>>>> What
>>>>> the "Regulators" are really annoyed about is that they can't  
>>>>> control
>>>>> everything (yet) so they will chip away and chip away. Hell, they
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> happy with the state law allowing exceptions to the "Idaho Clean  
>>>>> Air
>>>>> Act",
>>>>> so they will chip away where and when they can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly, I vote with my wallet on these issues. (And I vote at the
>>>>> poles
>>>>> during elections) IF a place bothers me, I don't go there. The
>>>>> "Regulators" aren't happy with that choice. Rather than not go  
>>>>> to an
>>>>> establishment where the smoking is allowed under State Law, they
>>>>> want the
>>>>> establishment to change via imposed legislation from the city
>>>>> council.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ---
>>>>> --- 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> I actually excpected an answer like Mike's.
>>>>>> So, how often are "others" in a bar during the bar's "operating
>>>>>> hours"?
>>>>>> They don't operate on a "9-5" schedule.
>>>>>> Most, if not all, of the maintainance, repairs and deliveries are
>>>>>> made
>>>>>> while the joint is closed.
>>>>>> So, it would seem that Mike's response is the true "straw man".
>>>>>> There was nothing dismissive, people were whining about those who
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> employed at smoking establishments. I made a reasonable  
>>>>>> suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> 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
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>