This page was last updated on July 30, 2010.
Go figure; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 30, 2010.
This is at least the 54th anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005, though it’s the first since March 2010. There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 53 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,” “Banned in Erie,” and “Why?”. 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>
If you were unfamiliar with the Times editorial body of work on this topic, you might be inclined to take the editorial at face value and believe the alleged concern is sincere. That’s undermined by Times editorials lobbying for government control over everything from diet to education to energy consumption to healthcare and on and on.
The editorial says, “The protesters held signs with messages that included ‘Say no to more government control’ and ‘What’s next? Your home?’” You may recall that back in 2002, Montgomery County, MD, instituted a law penalizing people for smoking in their own homes. The County eventually repealed the law.
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 not forget the current proposals to tax sugar-sweetened drinks.
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.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.