BCT Editorial – 3/4/09

This page was last updated on March 7, 2009.

Confused; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 4, 2009.

This is at least the 47^th anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005 and the third so far in 2009. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 46 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,” “Smoked out #4,” “Steep climb,” “Good health,” “Smoked out #5,” and “Wrong target.” 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>

As in “Wrong target,” the Times believes “a total ban is the fairest and best way to go” as compared to freedom of choice by private property owners and consumers. This is a hallmark of leftism.

Consider the following comment. The Times believes the smoking ban on private property is “unfair because it is full of exemptions.” Does anyone doubt the Times would scream bloody murder if our tax laws treated everyone exactly the same with exactly the same tax rates and no deductions, exemptions, et cetera?

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.’” I was right. Keep in mind “Steep climb” conceded the current bogus law “covers 95 percent of work places and public areas in the state.” That’s not enough for the Times, however.

Previous editorials told us “the good health of nonsmokers” is the issue. If you believe this based on the Times body of work on this topic, I have a bridge to sell you.

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. See today’s other editorial, “Lighten up,” for another example.