BCT Editorial – 5/5/05

This page was last updated on May 7, 2005.

Momentum; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 5, 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.

This is the third editorial since March 31^st advocating the abrogation of property rights to further the anti-smoking crusade.

People laugh when someone talks about a slippery slope, but the anti-smoking jihad is an example. In case we forgot, we were told many years ago that requiring restaurants to set aside no-smoking areas was a “compromise agreeable to all,” even though the laws trod on property rights. That was not true then, of course, and we now have confirmation those laws were merely the “camel’s nose in the tent.” I see the same trend with eminent domain.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If you want to gauge the amount of momentum that is behind indoor smoking bans, you don’t have to look any farther than Montana.”

[RWC] As you will learn below, most of the alleged “momentum” is in Democrat-controlled states. Given the real issue is private property rights, this should not be a surprise.

“Montana: Big Sky Country, a land of rugged individualists who don’t like the government telling them what to do with their lives.”

[RWC] This may be the image of Montana, but here are some facts the editorial failed to note. The House is split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans – the Speaker of the House is a Democrat – and Democrats hold a 27 to 23 majority in the Senate. The governor is a Democrat. In other words, with respect to state politics, Montana is a “blue” state even though it went for President Bush in 2004.

Here are some stats regarding how the legislature voted.

92% of House Democrats voted “yes” with one Democrat not voting. It was 93% in the Senate.

24% of House Republicans voted “yes”. It was 65% in the Senate.

Of “yes” votes in the House, 79% were Democrats. It was 62% in the Senate.

Of “no” votes in the House, 93% were Republicans. It was 80% in the Senate.

Unfortunately, smoking is one of those things that can make otherwise normal people nuts. I believe that’s why Republicans have far more defectors on this topic than Democrats. While Republicans generally vote to protect property rights, far too many desert their principles when it comes to smoking.

“Montana: The 10th state in the nation to ban smoking in all public places. The law takes effect Oct. 1 for all buildings and offices open to the public. Bars won’t be affected until 2007.”

[RWC] A point that is rarely mentioned is that the vast majority of the “public places” is private property.

Note to the Times fact checker. Bars won’t be affected until October 1, 2009, not 2007.

Here’s another point the editorial missed. Of the 10 states, Democrats control eight.

“If Montana sees the light on not lighting up, more states can’t be far behind.”

[RWC] As I noted above, 80% of the states with a smoking ban are controlled by Democrats. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if Pennsylvania eventually approves a smoking ban even though Republicans have comfortable majorities in the General Assembly. I say that because I can almost guarantee nearly 100% of GA Democrats would vote for a ban and too many GA Republicans are RINOs. Additional Republicans will be afflicted with the “I hate smoking so much it blinds me to my principles” disease.

Once we allow a violation of private property rights for “public places,” can “private places” be far behind? You may laugh, but consider the following. Montgomery County, Maryland, passed a law in November 2001 that would allow homeowner to be fined if a neighbor claimed he could smell tobacco smoke coming from the house. The country rescinded the law only a few days after it passed after it generated widespread national ridicule. You can bet a proposed ban on smoking in homes will rear its ugly head again somewhere.