BCT Editorial – 5/21/07

This page was last updated on May 21, 2007.

Smokey state; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 21, 2007.

This is at least the 15^th anti-smoking editorial since March 2005, and the third this month. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 14 editorials were “Momentum,” “Banned in Beaver,” “Get used to it,” “Trendy #1,” “Trendy #2,” “Straggling behind,” “Salutes & Boots,” “Smoked out #1,” “Smoked out #2,” “Smoked out #3,” “Smoke free,” “Survey says smoking ban popular,” “Inertia,” and “Doing harm.” 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.

“As Pennsylvania lawmakers continue to drag their feet on a statewide ban on indoor smoking, another state has become smoke free.

“On May 11, the Minnesota legislature passed a bill that prohibits smoking in bars, restaurants and bingo halls. In doing so, Minnesota became the 20th state to prohibit smoking indoors.

“The law even allows local governments to impose stricter limits.

“Meanwhile, efforts to ban indoor smoking in Pennsylvania remain bottled up in committee. It speaks volumes about our state lawmakers and their indifference to the health of nonsmokers and workers who are needlessly exposed to second-hand smoke.

“It’s just one more thing to add to the long list of things our do-nothing lawmakers don’t do when we go to vote in next year’s primary and general elections.

“If they won’t and don’t do anything, why should we keep them around?”

[RWC] Rather than excessively repeat what I’ve written in my previous critiques, I’ll simply go with the following points.

Why not let we the people decide the issue in the marketplace? If eliminating smoking on private property is truly the will of the people, we’ll stop patronizing and seeking employment at businesses that don’t provide reasonable accommodations for non-smokers. Businesses, clubs, etc. that don’t adapt will go under.

Even if everything written by those seeking to ban smoking on private property were true, ban proponents apparently assume we the people aren’t astute enough to make “proper” choices. What’s the next choice we won’t be smart enough to make on our own?