BCT Editorial – 11/19/06

This page was last updated on November 20, 2006.

Smoke free; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 19, 2006.

Let’s look at the Times war on property rights. This is at least the 10^th anti-smoking editorial since March 2005. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous nine editorials were “Momentum,” “Banned in Beaver,” “Get used to it,” “Trendy #1,” “Straggling behind,” “Salutes & Boots,” “Smoked out #1,” “Smoked out #2,” and “Trendy #2.” The comments in those critiques apply to this editorial as well.

Maybe it’s just me, but if I were writing an editorial to convince readers to agree with my position, I wouldn’t use “Trendy” as the title. To me, it conveys messages of smoke (no pun intended) blowing in the wind and/or being a slave to fashionable positions.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“It’s time for Pennsylvania to go smokeless.

“Last week, the Allegheny County Airport Authority approved a measure banning smoking in all areas of the airport, including bars and restaurants.

[RWC] I have absolutely no problem with the smoking ban at the airport for two reasons.

First, the airport is a taxpayer-owned facility run by a government entity. As the owner, the Authority has the right to set the rules of occupancy and use.

Second, people who want to travel by air have almost no choice but to use the airport. When you want to go out to eat, you can choose the restaurant. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don’t like it, you can go to another restaurant.

The airport is not the same as a local restaurant, which is private property.

“Smoking isn’t banned entirely. It’s still permitted in areas outside the Landside Terminal that are at least 15 feet from the entrances.

“However, smokers in the Airside Terminal won’t have that option, which is going to make for some very long flights and layovers for them.

“The airport smoking ban is even more restrictive than the one adopted recently by Allegheny County Council. While the county’s ordinance bans smoking in businesses and public buildings, it makes exceptions for some bars that don’t serve a lot of food.

“The county and the airport bans are part of a national, international and commercial trend. More and more cities, counties, nations and restaurants are going smoke free.”

[RWC] Note how the editorial tries to draw equivalence between governments (“cities, counties, nations”) banning smoking and “restaurants” that voluntarily prohibit smoking. There’s a big difference between a government telling someone what they can do with their private property and the owner making a choice. When businesses choose to prohibit smoking, I applaud the decision. What I oppose is government needlessly forcing its will on private property owners.

As I’ve noted before about this and other topics, why should we care one whit what other “nations” do?

“That’s why it’s time for the Legislature to get moving on a statewide ban. A bill that would do so has been bottled up in a House committee for far too long.

“The time is long overdue to uncork the bottle and ban indoor smoking in public facilities statewide.”

[RWC] Once again the editorial tries to draw equivalence between a truly public facility like the airport and the privately owned bar or restaurant down the street.

Make no mistake; this isn’t about banning smoking. It’s about getting us used to further government interference into our lives.