BCT Editorial – 5/29/07

This page was last updated on June 9, 2007.

Quit stalling; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 29, 2007.

This is at least the 16^th anti-smoking editorial since March 2005, and the fourth this month. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 15 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,” “Doing harm,” and “Smokey state.” 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.

Rather repeat myself and do another point-by-point critique, I’ll stick with a few comments.

If I thought I had a solid case, I’d also not resort to the name-calling we see in this editorial. I see name-calling almost exclusively from people who base their position on emotion and/or who know their position rests on a shaky foundation. As I noted in the comment I posted for “Smokey state,” reasons for smoking bans cited in previous editorials don’t hold up under scrutiny.

I’m also not a fan of using opinion polls – even legitimate polls – as a justification for legislation as this and other editorials do. Heck, ask me if I prefer smoking or nonsmoking establishments and nonsmoking will win every time because I don’t smoke, never have, and find tobacco smoke objectionable. That said, I recognize businesses, clubs, et cetera are private property and the owner should make the rules regarding legal activities, not me.

I believe smoking bans on private property are every bit as bad for private property rights as was the 2005 Supreme Court ruling (Kelo v. New London) that taking private property (eminent domain) and giving it to another private citizen is OK when it results in increased tax receipts.