BCT Editorial – 6/13/08

This page was last updated on June 14, 2008.

No big deal; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 14, 2008.

I’d like to think the passage of this affront to freedom [Senate Bill 246 (Regular Session 2007-2008)] would at least result in fewer anti-smoking-on-private-property editorials from the Times, but I suspect the capitulation of the General Assembly will simply be considered “blood in the water.”

This is at least the 39^th anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, and the 14^th this year alone. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 38 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,” “No joke,” “Different drummer” and “Classic politics,” “No joke,” and “Starting point.”

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.

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 concludes with, “Pennsylvania lawmakers had a chance to do what was right. Instead, they opted for what was expedient.” I agree.

While I fully expected leftist politicians like Rep. Biancucci (D-15) and Sen. LaValle (D-47) to vote for this infringement on liberty and property rights, I’m sorry to acknowledge so many so-called Republicans also voted for it, including Rep. Jim Marshall (R-14). Mr. Marshall doesn’t represent my district (15) and I don’t follow him closely, but the few times I’ve checked I’ve been disappointed. As far as I can tell, Mr. Marshall is the typical PA Republican politician, that is, Democrat-lite.

Finally, the editorial is telling. One more “little” chip is taken from our liberty, and the Times considers it “No big deal.” It’s interesting considering the Times likes to quote Martin Niemoller.