BCT Editorial – 6/15/07

This page was last updated on July 2, 2007.

Cleaning the air; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 15, 2007.

This is at least the 18^th anti-smoking editorial since March 2005, the sixth since May 3^rd, and the second this month. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 17 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,” “Smokey state,” “Quit stalling,” and “Snuffed out.” 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.

There’s nothing new in this editorial, so rather repeat myself and do another point-by-point critique, I’ll stick with a few comments.

Though “Snuffed out” conceded the Times is calling for a smoking ban in private spaces (bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.), this editorial is back to referring to private property as “other public spaces.”

I wish someone would explain the real reason behind the crusade against smoking on private property. As I’ve detailed in previous critiques, the reasons cited by the aforementioned editorials don’t hold up under scrutiny. Could it be “the camel’s nose under the tent” strategy to open the door to other nanny government directives? What’s the next “unhealthy behavior” the Times will want to ban? Remember, New York City banned the use of trans fats in food and Chicago banned foie gras (enlarged goose liver) in restaurants. When will the Times find a study that asserts getting information from anywhere other than a local newspaper is unhealthy? <g>