BCT Editorial – 5/28/06

This page was last updated on May 29, 2006.

Straggling behind; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 28, 2006. Though it appeared in the print edition of the Times, this editorial was not posted on the Times website at the time I wrote this critique.

This is another in a series pushing smoking prohibition. If you recall, last year we had a flurry of four anti-smoking editorials within two months (3/31/05 – 5/31/05). They were “Momentum,” “Banned in Beaver,” “Get used to it,” and “Trendy” and the comments in those critiques apply to this editorial as well.

Rather than transcribe the whole thing, I’ll transcribe only the couple of paragraphs I want to comment about. In summary, and as evidenced in the title, the editorial’s justification is everyone else is doing it and lists a bunch of examples.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“For Cornell, it’s not a matter of smokers’ freedom of choice. It’s a health issue, and she’s absolutely right.”

[RWC] As I’ve written previously, I agree “it’s not a matter of smokers’ freedom of choice.” It’s about the rights of the property owner. If the property owner wants to allow/prohibit smoking in/on his property, that should be his choice until smoking anywhere becomes illegal. People can choose for themselves whether or not they want to patronize that business. Using the “smokers’ freedom of choice” gambit is an attempt to twist the issue.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many of the people who fight for a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn child oppose a property owner’s right to choose whether or not people can smoke in/on his property.

“In a way, opposition to a statewide smoke-free law is symbolic of the Legislature’s resistance to change, which permeates its collective psyche. As a result, the commonwealth isn’t a leader. It’s not even a follower. It’s a straggler that doesn’t realize until it’s too late that the parade has passed it by.”

[RWC] When it’s taxes, being in the middle of the pack is a good thing according to Times editorials. What’s different about abrogating property rights via smoking bans? They are completely consistent positions, though, when you have a liberal’s view of the world. Both high taxes and smoking bans restrict property rights and exert evermore government control over the individual. Increasing government control is a tenet of liberalism/progressivism/socialism.