This page was last updated on March 4, 2010.
Why?; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 4, 2010.
This is at least the 53rd anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, though it’s the first since December 2009. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 52 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,” “Wrong target,” “Confused,” “Drop dead,” “There’s no going back,” “Stopping a killer,” “Slacker state,” and “Banned in Erie.” 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 itself a symptom of OCD. <g>
I believe this is the second time a Times editorial tried to draw a parallel between smoking bans on private property and banning handheld cell phone while driving. Before I get to the core of the issue, let me mention a few things about the subject law the editorial chose not to mention.
First, the law is likely to “be challenged on the basis that the state vehicle code supersedes all local laws on the issue, including Harrisburg’s.” This would be the same as for smoking bans on private property.
Second, the way I read the law, it could also be applied to CB radios (Remember them?), regular radios, navigation systems, or any other device involved with communication outside the vehicle. Though regular radios and navigation systems may be one-way communication, it’s still communication. They are also interactive because what they provide is determined by your input.
Third, the law exempts government employees “in the course of ordinary business in their employment with a city, state or federal agency or authority.” You may think this is to cover “Law enforcement officers or operators of emergency vehicles when on duty and acting within their official capacities,” but that’s covered explicitly by the law’s very first exemption. Outside of the public safety exemption, why should government employees get an exemption when doing their jobs when private sector employees don’t? This is just another example of government making a law that applies to us but not to government.
Now to the core issue, drawing a parallel between smoking bans on private property and banning handheld cell phone use while driving. Whether or not you agree with a ban on handheld cell phone use while driving, there is a huge fundamental difference between the two situations.
When it comes to the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke, it’s your choice whether or not you patronize businesses that allow smoking. In other words, you can choose to put yourself “at risk” or not. If you become a “victim” of secondhand smoke, it’s a result of your actions.
Let’s look at the victims of distracted drivers. I believe it’s safe to say nearly 100% of distracted driver victims receive their mortal injuries on public roads. Public roads are true public property. While I can easily avoid the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke without a nanny government, I can’t avoid distracted drivers unless I stay off the roads (true public property). This is the same as for DUI drivers.
For more of my comments on this issue, please read any of the above linked critiques.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.