BCT Editorial – 5/31/05

This page was last updated on June 7, 2005.

Trendy; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 31, 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 fourth editorial since March 31^st (Momentum, Banned in Beaver, Get used to it) advocating the abrogation of property rights to further the anti-smoking crusade.

If you don’t want to breathe tobacco smoke, choose not to patronize a bar or restaurant that allows smoking.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The smoking circle keeps getting smaller and smaller.

“The Associated Press reports Philadelphia City Council, on a 10-7 vote, gave preliminary approval last week to a bill that prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants. The measure exempts sidewalk cafes, offers waivers for private clubs and gives bars an additional two years to become smoke-free.”

[RWC] Until recently, I assumed these laws didn’t cover private clubs. That changed when I learned the New York City ban includes private clubs and a federal judge upheld the ban.

Regarding an exemption for “sidewalk cafes,” what about equal treatment under the law? Isn’t this discrimination against traditional bars and restaurants?

“Council will vote on the ban bill this week. If passed and signed into law, the ban would take effect in January and would be phased in until 2008.

“If Philadelphia does adopt the ban, it will join a number of municipalities, including New York City, in prohibiting indoor smoking in bars and restaurants. Instead of fighting this trend, bars and restaurants in our region would be wise to take steps to accommodate themselves to it before they are forced to.”

[RWC] In other words, the Times wants all bars and restaurants to ban smoking under the threat of having their property rights abrogated by government. If banning smoking were the best thing for these businesses, wouldn’t they have banned smoking already?

This is the same as telling the Times to enact a given editorial policy before the government forces it to. Lest you believe that can’t happen, recall the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” that ruled the broadcast media from 1949 until 1987.

Finally, the editorial title is telling. We can’t let “trendy” crusades dictate law.