BCT Editorial – 5/8/08

This page was last updated on May 9, 2008.

Different drummer; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 8, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Pennsylvania continues to be out of step when it comes to a ban on indoor smoking.”

This is at least the 35^th anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, and the 10^th in the last four months. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 34 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,” “Escape artists,” “Lapped,” “The right thing,” and “No joke.” 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. As we already know, the Times is all for laws to ban behavior it simply believes is annoying. When will the Times find a study that asserts getting information from anywhere other than a local newspaper is unhealthy? <g>

The editorial says “smoking bans discourage tobacco use in teens by sending the message that smoking is frowned upon in the community.” Let me get this straight. The laws against selling tobacco to teens and all the signs in the stores reminding us of that fact don’t “send the message.” Parents telling their kids of the perils of tobacco don’t “send the message.” Everything kids learn in school about the perils of tobacco doesn’t “send the message.” But banning smoking on private property will “send the message.” Sure. If this is true for tobacco, shouldn’t it also be true for alcohol? Where are the editorials pushing for a ban on alcohol consumption on private property?

As the previous editorials, this one is a joke. It concludes with, “Unfortunately, the final destination for those who have been exposed to second-hand smoke is a graveyard.” No kidding! That’s also true for those who have NOT been exposed to second-hand smoke. Here’s something else the editorial failed to note. Did you know that everyone who has handled or read the Times has died or will die?