BCT Editorial – 5/1/05

This page was last updated on May 1, 2005.

Banned in Beaver; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 1, 2005.

This is my standard disclosure regarding the smoking topic. 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.

Given my previous critiques on this topic, readers who have either not paid attention or did not understand will be surprised at my response to the CCBC ban on smoking. I have no problem with the smoking ban at CCBC. Why? For all practical purposes, the “property owner” made the decision.

The position taken by the editorial is a different matter.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. Just don’t do it here.”

[RWC] Where is “here?” Though the editorial title would have readers believe the ban is in Beaver or Beaver County, it’s only inside CCBC buildings in Center Township.

“Last week, the Community College of Beaver County’s board of trustees joined a growing list when its members unanimously voted to ban smoking in all eight campus buildings on the Center Township campus. The new policy will take effect no later than July 1.

“Under the old policy, adopted in 1992 and revised in 1998, smoking was allowed in part of the cafeteria and in the boardroom and faculty/staff lounge in the administration building.

“Under the new policy, smoking will be permitted only in an as-yet-to-be-named designated area outside each building.

“CCBC President Joe Forrester said the policy change was prompted by complaints from students about the smoking area in the cafeteria and poor ventilation in the administration building that allowed smoke to drift out of designated rooms and into smoke-free areas.

“This is part of a statewide and national trend. More and more buildings are becoming smoke-free, as well they should. Nonsmokers should not have to put up with this pollution, and many are becoming more assertive in their right to work and dine in a smoke-free environment.”

[RWC] Too bad the editorial author didn’t tell us where the “right to work and dine in a smoke-free environment” is enumerated. Too bad the author failed to mention the rights of the property owner.

“A recent statewide survey of 1,754 Pennsylvania residents by Mansfield University showed where the public is heading.

“In the past, up to 63 percent of those polled as part of the ‘Vies of Pennsylvania Citizens’ survey, formerly ‘The Public Mind,’ said they were generally supportive of an overall ban on smoking in public places.”

[RWC] What does the editorial mean by a “public” place? Is it a place owned by government, or does it include privately owned property?

“However, they still balked at extending that ban to bars and restaurants. As late as the 2003 survey, 49 percent supported the idea of exempting bars and restaurants from a smoking ban.

“What a difference a year makes. In the 2004 survey, 60 percent responded that a ban on smoking should extend to bars and restaurants.”

[RWC] What happened to the rights of the property owner? No one forces anyone to work in or patronize businesses that allow smoking.

“This trend is not going to be reversed, especially as more nonsmokers become less willing to have smoke blown in their faces, albeit unintentionally in most cases. They’re simply not going to take it any more.”

[RWC] The usurpation of property rights is an increasingly troublesome trend. Remember, the government banning smoking on private property is just one attack on property rights. The increasing abuse of eminent domain may be even worse.