BCT Editorial – 4/14/11

This page was last updated on April 14, 2011.

Quick hits; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 14, 2011.

“SMOKED OUT” is at least the 57^th anti-smoking on private property editorial since March 2005 and at least the seventh entitled “Smoked out.” There have been so many the Times is recycling editorial titles. The previous 56 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,” “Why?,” “Go figure,” “Leveling effect,” and “Smoked out #6.” 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>

In this case, the “reason” is the mental health of children. You’ll note the editorial didn’t tell us how much exposure to “second-hand smoke” allegedly caused the problem. For example, were the kids living in a house and riding in cars in which one or both parents smoked, or was it the result of sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant for a meal once a week? I tried to get more details but the full report requires a subscription. In any case, no one forces parents to take kids into places that allow smoking. Can parents not be trusted to do what’s best for their kids?

This and previous editorials want us to believe 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. As a reminder, the Times did find one nanny state action crossed the line, banning toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals.

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.