BCT Editorial – 3/31/05

This page was last updated on March 31, 2005.

Get used to it; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 31, 2005.

Other than stealing a few of my Grandpa’s cigarettes to try them when I was a little kid, I’ve never been a smoker. I prefer not to be in places where people are smoking – the smoke irritates my eyes and throat – and I hate the smell of smoke on my clothes. I don’t permit persons to smoke in my car or home. That said, I don’t believe the government should take away property rights to further the anti-smoking crusade.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Smoke travels.

“In essence, that is one of the forces that is driving the push for indoor smoking bans in public places, including restaurants and bars.

“If smokers could light up and smoke in a bubble, their habit would be a case of no harm and no foul. But second-hand smoke does do harm to others, and the smell is foul.

“Smokers can mount all the righteous defenses they like for their addiction, but the bottom line is that their habit encroaches on others. (The same cannot be said of chewing tobacco and snuff.)

[RWC] I guess the editorial author has never had the “pleasure” of watching a smokeless tobacco user dispose of his wad.

“Up until 1999, state law blocked local governments from adopting their own regulations that superseded the commonwealth’s pathetically flaccid Clear Indoor Air Act of 1988.

“That limitation of power was repealed that year, and it now up to individual municipalities and restaurant owners such as Maria’s Kitchen in West Aliquippa and Junior’s in Coraopolis to set the standard.

“Nonsmokers can do their part to dine in a smoke-free environment by being just as vocal as smokers when it comes to their rights to dine in a smoke-free environment. They also can patronize smoke-free establishments and let others know about them.

[RWC] Wow, the editorial author could be a liberal nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, he found a “right” to dine in a smoke-free environment. Apparently, the diner’s “right” to a smoke-free meal trumps the property owner’s rights, even though no one forces the diner into a restaurant, bar, et cetera.

“Nonsmokers can do their part … by being just as vocal as smokers?” My hearing must be deteriorating. From everything I hear and read, nonsmokers are far more vocal than smokers. How do you think all the crackpot laws barring smoking, cigarette ads, et cetera came about? What about all those ridiculous tobacco lawsuits and settlements?

“And if you think about it, what does it say when a person’s addiction is so bad that he or she can’t go the 30 minutes to an hour that it takes to get served and eat a meal in most restaurants without lighting up.

“If smokers want to light up in their homes, their vehicles or their back yards, that’s their prerogative. But when they move into public places, the situation changes. They now are imposing their habit on others.”

[RWC] The editorial author isn’t paying attention to his subject. In California and other foreign countries, legislation has already been proposed to prohibit smoking in cars.

“How long will it be before non-smokers get tired of this abuse? Not long.

“New York City and Boston are among the many municipalities that are smoke free, and Philadelphia might be following suit. Heck, Wheeling, W.Va., has banned smoking in pubs, restaurants and bars (excluding the gambling joints). Even in Europe, one of the last bastions of smoking, several countries have banned indoor smoking.

“One way restaurants and bars in Pennsylvania could head off such a ban would be to establish separate dining rooms for smokers and nonsmokers, no matter what their size.”

[RWC] This assumes all establishments could afford the remodeling, separate HVAC systems, and ongoing operating costs of maintaining two environments. I suspect most restaurants could not afford this arrangement, and I suspect the editorial author knows this.

“If they don’t do that, public pressure from nonsmokers might force the Legislature or local governments to step in a mandate such a move.

“Do yourself a favor. The next time you’re in one of these restaurants that does not physically separate smokers and nonsmokers, check out how few actually smoke, and how the ones who do foul the air of the many who don’t.

“If nonsmokers exert their political and commercial clout, there is no doubt as to the outcome of this issue.”

[RWC] Notice the editorial ignored the easiest solution that doesn’t strip property owners of their rights yet allows smokers and nonsmokers alike to make informed choices. If we absolutely need to get government involved, why not just mandate a sign outside establishments describing the smoking/nonsmoking environment? Liberals should go for this; aren’t they pro-choice?