BCT Editorial – 12/7/08

This page was last updated on December 7, 2008.

Smoked out; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 7, 2008.

“Smoked out” extended its lead as the most reused title for smoking ban editorials. This makes at least four “Smoked out” editorials since June 2006.

This is at least the 42^nd anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, and the 17^th this year alone. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 41 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,” “Starting point,” “No big deal,” “Blowing smoke,” and “Don’t lighten up.”

Actually, since the editorial is talking about “state-owned universities,” we’re talking about true public spaces (owned by taxpayers) so I have no problem with government imposing smoking restrictions.

If I have no problem with smoking restrictions on taxpayer property, why write the critique? It’s to expose the Times true agenda. Look at what has the Times wound up. The editorial is bummed “employees would be allowed to smoke inside their cars with the windows up and on sidewalks along public roads.”

Wasn’t the reason given for supporting indoor smoking bans the bogus idea nonsmokers couldn’t escape evil “second-hand smoke” when indoors? Seriously, how much “second-hand smoke” will someone get when they walk by people smoking “inside their cars with the windows up?”

What about smoking “on sidewalks along public roads?” Aren’t these the same “public roads” with cars and trucks cranking out far more pollution than a smoker?

Face it, the Times wants to prohibit tobacco smoking entirely without actually saying so. I don’t know why the Times can’t just be honest about its agenda.

“Blowing smoke” said, “… some smokers direly warned that Big Brother government would turn its attention to fast-food next. Fat chance of that happening.” Oh yeah? As I noted in my critique of that editorial, the third paragraph of “A food fight over calorie counts” (BusinessWeek; Feb 11, 2008; p. 036) read, “… and in Los Angeles there has even been a discussion of ‘food zoning’ – barring new fast-food eateries from high-obesity neighborhoods.” Guess what? On July 29, 2008, LA city council issued a one-year ban (with the option to extend the ban) on new fast-food restaurants in a 32 square-mile area of south LA.

Let’s also remember the editorial “Silence, please.” In that editorial, the Times lobbied for banning cell phone use on airplanes not for any flight safety or technical concerns, but because the editorial author found the practice annoying. The editorial concluded with, “Let’s no [sic] take any chance. Turn the FCC ban into law as soon as possible.”

Finally, one by one we’re seeing our natural rights transformed into privileges doled out at government discretion. This is the goal of leftist ideology.