BCT Editorial – 12/26/08

This page was last updated on December 29, 2008.

Steep climb; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 26, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Senator faces uphill battle to close loopholes in state’s smoking ban.”

This is at least the 43^rd anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, and the 18^th this year alone. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 42 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,” “Don’t lighten up,” and “Smoked out #4.” Could all these editorials on just one topic be a symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)? Of course, perhaps my keeping track of the editorials is a symptom of OCD. <g>

When I critiqued “No big deal” I wrote, “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 the fourth editorial pushing for more restrictions since that critique only six months ago. Keep in mind that even this editorial concedes the current bogus law “covers 95 percent of work places and public areas in the state.” That’s not enough for the Times, however.

Another telling excerpt is “The exclusion of clubs is another exemption that is grossly unfair because tilts [sic] the playing field away from bars and restaurants toward private facilities.” Note most of the previous editorials lobbied for smoking bans for “public places.” Now that the Times has its ban for “public” “bars and restaurants” (They are still private property.), it now wants smoking banned for “private facilities.” The editorial failed to note the current law states, “In order to qualify for the exception … a private club must take and record a vote of its officers under the bylaws to address smoking in the private club’s facilities.” In other words, the current law simply “gives” private clubs the right they and all privately owned businesses have always enjoyed. When can we expect an editorial saying “The exclusion of private houses is another exemption that is grossly unfair because it tilts the playing field away from bars, restaurants, and private clubs?” Actually, I believe that’s been the goal all along but the Times didn’t feel it could be forthcoming about that point until it got “its nose under the tent.” You’ll recall in “Smoked out #4” the Times was upset people at “state-owned universities” could smoke in their cars with the windows rolled up! The tactic we’re seeing is common for leftists. The idea is to take away rights in “unnoticeable” bites until one day we wake up and wonder what happened.

Face it, the Times wants the tobacco equivalent of Prohibition without actually saying so. 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.