BCT Editorial – 7/6/06

This page was last updated on July 9, 2006.

Smoked out; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 6, 2006.

The Times must like this title. It’s the second time within 17 days we’ve been treated to a “Smoked out” editorial.

Let’s look at the Times war on property rights. This is the fourth anti-smoking editorial since May 28^th. The previous three were “Straggling behind”, “Salutes & Boots”, and “Smoked out.” 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.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“It didn’t take long for the U.S. surgeon general’s report on the dangers of second-hand smoke to non-smokers to hit home.

“Shortly after the devastating report came out last week, the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association announced it had reversed its long-held position on smoking and said it now favors a statewide, all-inclusive ban in restaurants and other public places.”

[RWC] My reaction to the Surgeon General’s report was threefold.

First, I wondered if the conclusions were correct/true. Given for what passes as scientific study when it comes to public policy issues, I have acquired a built-in distrust for such studies. Remember, the guys who 30 years ago sounded the alarm for manmade global cooling almost overnight switched to manmade global warming. Also, even a brief reading of the report reveals a lot of “scare tactic” language. For example, the report asserts, “[t]here is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” Even if true, it’s also true for probably every atmospheric pollutant.

Second, using the alleged detrimental health effects of secondhand smoke is a red herring. Why? The last time I checked, no one forces us to patronize or work for businesses, clubs, et cetera that permit smoking. For example, if I don’t want to eat in a smoking environment, I don’t have go to a restaurant that permits smoking. Likewise, why shouldn’t a business owner be allowed to cater to customers who like to smoke? If not being 100% smoke-free is bad for business, ultimately he’ll go smokeless or go out of business.

Third, I asked myself why the report felt the need to use deceptive language. For example, the report refers to a 100% voluntary act – such as choosing to eat at a smoking-allowed restaurant – as “involuntary smoking.” The report also uses “public places” to refer to private property like businesses and clubs.

“The group finally grasped what others have been saying: As long as the ban applies to every establishment, no one is at a disadvantage.

“It’s now up to state lawmakers to get with the program as well. They’ve been dawdling on this issue for far too long.

“Now that the state’s restaurant association has gotten behind the smoke-free effort, what’s their excuse for inaction now?”

[RWC] The editorial wants us to believe the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association (PRA) reversed its position as a result of the Surgeon General’s report. According to the Times own reporting, that’s untrue. An article told us the PRA “board of directors made the decision a day before the surgeon general released his report.”¹ Which should we believe, the editorial or the “news” article?

1. Smoking ban slowly winning supporters; Larissa Theodore, Times Staff; Beaver County Times; July 3, 2006.