Oren M. Spiegler – 7/11/06

This page was last updated on July 16, 2006.

Our right to breathe clean air; Oren M. Spiegler; Beaver County Times; July 11, 2006.

Mr. Spiegler is such a prolific letter writer, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review gave him a little tribute back in 2003. Google “Oren M. Spiegler” and you’ll get more hits than you know what to do with. Unfortunately, prolific is not a synonym for competent. Mr. Spiegler claims to be a Republican.

While Mr. Spiegler may be a Republican, the position he takes in this letter is definitely non-conservative. For more of my comments on this topic, please read my critique of the Times editorial entitled “Smoked out” and my letter to the editor.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“It is always interesting and amusing to observe the tactics utilized by those who sweep aside the now well-documented dangers of secondhand smoke, believing that the smoker should have the right to light up whenever and wherever he or she chooses.

“In his letter to the editor on Thursday, Tony DiTommaso does not disappoint.”

[RWC] For whatever reason, DiTommaso’s letter is no longer on the Times website. Fortunately I have a copy and, contrary to what Mr. Spiegler claims, DiTommaso didn’t write anything similar to “the smoker should have the right to light up whenever and wherever he or she chooses.”

While DiTommaso’s letter strongly opposed smoking bans, Mr. Spiegler misrepresents the content of DiTommaso’s letter throughout his own letter.

“He cites a number of other factors that he feels contribute to untimely deaths, concluding that if there are other ways that one can die, we should not be concerned about the effects of secondhand smoke.”

[RWC] Another misrepresentation. DiTommaso drew no such conclusion.

“His answer is to maintain the status quo. In his mind, one who does not want to endanger their health through being in the presence of secondhand smoke should simply not go to establishments that allow it; we should stay out of ‘his places.’”

[RWC] Apparently Mr. Spiegler doesn’t believe in property owner rights, or at least those with which he disagrees.

“DiTommaso praised Democrats on the state House Health and Welfare Committee who blocked bringing smoke-free workplace legislation to the floor. These obstructionists have an interesting posture: they in many instances support the biggest, most intrusive, expensive government possible, but on the matter of involving the government to provide our constitutionally assured right to clean air, they stand with big tobacco and the addict, believing that their ‘right’ to foul the air is supreme.”

[RWC] Democrats traditionally support smoking bans like that in PA House Bill 1489 and Republicans tend to oppose them. To date, I haven’t figured out why this time Republicans supported the ban while Democrats opposed it.

“Those like DiTommaso, who believe that public accommodation is owed to the nicotine addict, are part of a dying breed and, eventually, even provincial, backward Pennsylvania will come into the modern age, joining other more enlightened jurisdictions that have recognized that they have a responsibility to take reasonable actions to enhance public health and safety.”

[RWC] DiTommaso never asserted “that public accommodation is owed” smokers.

Ah, Mr. Spiegler finally got into name-calling. If you agree with Mr. Spiegler, you are “enlightened.” If you disagree with him, however, you are “provincial” and “backward.” For a self-described Republican, Mr. Spiegler writes similar to a liberal, or at least similar to someone who knows he can’t defend his position on principle.

If Mr. Spiegler really believes people can’t make their own choices, he’s an example of the problem with too many of today’s Republicans. He’s a Republican, but not a conservative.

“Do those like DiTommaso have any concern about how their pro-smoking position impacts impressionable children who might be naive enough to follow them in their belief that freedom means the ability to pass down a lethal drug addiction from generation to generation?”

[RWC] When did standing up for choice and property rights turn into being “pro-smoking?”

I’m a nonsmoker and always have been. When I choose to be in areas that permit smoking, tobacco smoke occasionally burns my eyes, irritates my throat, and I hate the stink of smoke on my clothes. I’ve also had friends get annoyed with me when I wouldn’t allow them to smoke in my car and residence. Despite my dislike of tobacco smoke, I wouldn’t dream of telling someone that he could not permit smoking on his private property. Standing up for principles isn’t about standing up only for what is convenient or what I may like.

Mr. Spiegler wants us to believe he worries about “impressionable children.” If he were truly worried about children, Mr. Spiegler would be more concerned about the message he is sending that people are too stupid to make their own choices and that property rights are something to be trampled when it’s convenient.