BCT Editorial – 8/9/07

This page was last updated on August 28, 2007.

Smoky City; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 9, 2007.

This is at least the 24^th 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 23 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,” “Poor excuses,” and “Banned.” 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.

“Casino operator Don Barden apparently believes Pittsburgh is still the Smoky City.”

[RWC] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published a decent article on this issue entitled “Barden will allow smoking in casino.”

“Barden has said that he intends for the $450 million Majestic Star Casino he plans to build on the North Shore to be a smoker’s paradise. No ban on smoking; no nonsmoking section on the casino floor: the casino will be a smoke-’em-if-ya-got-’em kind of place.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note there will be nonsmoking sections in the casino bars and restaurants. Just an honest oversight, I’m sure. <g>

“If Barden follows through with his intentions, Pittsburgh’s free-standing slots casino will be the exception to the rule. The Associated Press reports all the other slots casinos in Pennsylvania offer nonsmoking sections on casino floors.

“Barden’s nonsmoking stand could burn his operation.

“The competition for slots gamblers and their money is going to be fierce. Smokers aren’t going to drive past a casino that offers smoking and nonsmoking sections on the floor. However, many nonsmokers will drive past Barden’s casino to go to one that is smoke-free. (The Meadows in Washington County isn’t that far away).

“Can Barden afford to write off that many customers?”

[RWC] According to the aforementioned PG article, “Mr. Barden at one point created a nonsmoking section in one of his Gary, Ind., casinos and it proved to be a bust.” Later the article noted the issue isn’t closed because the casino will listen to what its customers say. Again, I’m sure these omissions were just honest oversights by the author, or perhaps the author didn’t do his research. <g>

Finally, have you noticed how often Times editorials tell people and other businesses what to do? It kind of makes you wonder why they aren’t in these more financially lucrative businesses themselves if they’re so smart. Then again, maybe they are.