Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/26/06

This page was last updated on October 1, 2006.

Vote to cut / County Council should join the anti-smoking forces; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 26, 2006.

I could be wrong, but I believe this is the PG’s first anti-smoking editorial since “Smoking them out” in November 2002.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Allegheny County Council risks a lawsuit if it votes tonight to ban indoor smoking in workplaces. It is, however, much more perilous for council to permit smokers to continue spewing their carcinogenic haze in the faces of nonsmokers.

“--Cut the smoke--

“If the ordinance is approved, the county could be sued by someone who wants to continue puffing in bars or by a restaurant whose owner believes the no-smoking ordinance will diminish its ability to compete with eateries in adjacent counties that don’t require eviction of smokers.

“--Cut lung cancer--

The suit would be based on a clause in the state’s 1988 Clean Air Act that forbade towns from imposing smoking rules more strict than the state’s.

“--Cut emphysema--

“That suppression of local officials’ ability to protect their constituents’ health occurred nearly two decades before the release this summer of the U.S. surgeon general’s report that said no level of exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke is safe.

“--Cut asthma--

“The Legislature in 1999 repealed the clause limiting the action of local officials. A year later, the lawmakers repealed the repeal, but state law says that doesn’t reinstate the original statute.

“--Cut heart disease--

“It’s complicated and confusing, but in the end the county could win a challenge to its smoking ban anyway.

“--Cut medical costs--

“Philadelphia began enforcing the state’s first comprehensive workplace smoking ban yesterday. With its new ordinance to cut a parade of health horrors, that city’s elected officials are the leaders in Pennsylvania on this issue. Allegheny County’s council and chief executive must show they are leaders, whose first interest, as well, is the public’s health.”

[RWC] What is it about personal choice and private property rights that liberals don’t get?

I believe smoking is an unhealthy and vile habit and I tend to avoid places where tobacco smoke is noticeable, though I do make exceptions. That said, I believe a private property owner should have the sole right to determine whether smoking is permitted on his property. (Of course there are obvious exceptions. For example, no one believes smoking around gasoline pumps should be allowed.) If a property owner decides to allow smoking on his property, nothing forces nonsmokers to take jobs there or to patronize the business.

Using the PG’s logic, why not prohibit restaurants from selling “unhealthy” food? For example, prohibit sales of pop, ice cream, et cetera that is not sugar free. To help address obesity, prohibit restaurants from serving meals with more than 500 calories. After all, wouldn’t these actions “cut heart disease” and “cut medical costs?”