BCT Editorial – 4/9/08

This page was last updated on April 12, 2008.

Lapped; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 9, 2008.

This is at least the 32^nd anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 31 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,” “Banned,” “Smoky City,” “No more delays,” “Haunting fear,” “Sad state,” “Fear factor,” “Pay up,” “Banned in Bristol,” and “Escape artists.” As it has in some previous editorials, this one goes with the “but they did it” approach.

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? See my critique of “Food fight” to see what I mean. 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.

“Here’s how ridiculous the Legislature’s foot-dragging regarding a ban on indoor smoking has gotten: Pennsylvania is being lapped by the Third World.”

[RWC] This editorial combines two favorite Times topics, banning smoking on private property and comparing the U.S. to the Third World. This is at least the third Third World reference in the last two weeks alone.

“Reuters news service reports smoggy Mexico City has banned cigarette smoking in all public places, from bars to office buildings, to reduce the amount of carcinogens inhaled by residents. The law to ban smoking in all enclosed areas, from sidewalk cafes to public transportation to elevators and schools, was passed by the city assembly in November.”

[RWC] Yep, you read it right. The Times believes Mexico is a role model. Mexico has to send millions of its citizens to the U.S. illegally for employment, but that’s OK because Mexico City has banned smoking on private property, whatever private property means in Mexico.

You’ll also note the editorial failed to note Mexico City has one of the most severe air pollution environments in the world. It’s so bad, your license plate number determines which days of the week you’re allowed to drive in Mexico City. And that’s on “good” pollution days. Restrictions become even greater depending on the air-quality emergency status. As I wrote before, that’s OK because Mexico City has banned smoking on private property.

“Think about it. The Third World is starting to recognize the danger of second-hand smoke and doing something about it. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania lawmakers get the vapors over the thought of banning indoor smoking. This is getting downright embarrassing.

“Unfortunately, these guys are beyond embarrassment.”

[RWC] It apparently didn’t occur to the Times that Third World countries are Third World countries because of their policies. And those policies? Yep, most (all?) Third World countries have governments employing leftist policies.

Before asserting others “are beyond embarrassment,” perhaps the Times should look in the mirror, without their leftism tinted glasses clouding the view.