BCT Editorial – 8/1/07

This page was last updated on August 28, 2007.

Banned; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 1, 2007.

This is at least the 23^rd anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, the 11^th since May 3^rd, the fifth since June 4^th, and the fourth since July 2^nd. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 22 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,” “Snuffed out,” “Cleaning the air,” “Keeping up,” “Smoking ban,” “Life and death,” and “Poor excuses.” 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. Also, note how these editorials frequently engage in name-calling, as did this one.

Though “Snuffed out” conceded the Times is calling for a smoking ban in private spaces (bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.), the Times reverted to form in “Cleaning the air” and is back to referring to private property as “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>

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“As Pennsylvania lawmakers balk at banning indoor smoking in public places, the rest of the world is moving ahead.

“Last month, smoking was banned in all public buildings in England, including pubs, theaters and shopping malls.

“It was the last part of the United Kingdom to institute such a ban. Wales and Ireland did it earlier this year and Scotland did it last year.

“Countries are banning smoking nationwide, and Pennsylvania lawmakers can’t get off the dime. Why?”

[RWC] Since the Times is enamored with the UK limiting private property rights, and hence civil rights, does this mean we’ll soon see an editorial recommending the U.S. adopt UK anti-terrorism laws? Don’t bet on it.