Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/14/06

This page was last updated on December 17, 2006.

Where there’s smoke … There’s fire stoked by tobacco interests; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 14, 2006.

Let’s be honest. Support of smoking bans is mostly based on personal dislike of tobacco smoke. The alleged health aspect is simply a red herring.

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.

As I’ve written before, I don’t understand the jihad against allowing customers and business owners to decide where smoking will be allowed. Why not allow individual freedom of choice determine the issue on a case-by-case basis? People like the PG apparently believe we’re too stupid to make our own choices.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The myth of the underdog has a strong hold on the American imagination and the proponents of every cause fancy themselves as the brave Davids battling the mighty Goliaths. Smokers are the latest group who think they are being hard done by.

“They pose as the little guys, just trying to exercise what they see as their right to fill the air with carcinogen-laden tobacco smoke. They insist that it’s no-one else’s business what they do in public, even though other people’s throats and lungs also pay the price.”

[RWC] Ah, another abuse of the term “public.” The Beaver County Courthouse is a public place. Businesses are private property.

“The surgeon general of the United States recently documented that terrible price. Quite apart from the damage smoking does to the smokers, the surgeon general found ‘indisputable’ evidence that secondhand smoke is a major threat to others, killing an estimated 50,000 people each year.”

[RWC] By focusing on smokers, the editorial deftly avoids the issue of property owner rights. If I own a business and I want to allow my customers and/or employees to smoke, why should the government ban it? No one hold a gun to the heads of nonsmoking customers and employees to patronize or work there. If government wants to ban smoking in real public places, like courthouses, airport terminals, et cetera, that’s fine by me.

“Responsible government officials can’t ignore this problem and, in October, Allegheny County joined the growing trend to tackle it head-on, passing an ordinance -- due to take effect Jan. 2 -- that will ban smoking in restaurants, taverns and social clubs with 10 or more employees.

“Inevitably, a couple of establishments sued and, to the unwary, they may seem like sympathetic plaintiffs: Mitchell’s Bar and Restaurant and the Smithfield Cafe, Downtown, where smokers have been welcome for years.

“But, as it turns out, these redoubts of the common man have an uncommonly rich supporter: R.J. Reynolds. The Post-Gazette has been told that the huge tobacco company, which is based in Winston-Salem, N.C., is paying the legal bills for the restaurant owners.

“There’s nothing unusual about this. It is par for the course. In the Nov. 7 election in Ohio, R.J. Reynolds spent millions of dollars in unsuccessfully supporting Issue 4, a smokescreen referendum question that was meant to fool voters and sabotage a genuine anti-smoking initiative backed by the American Cancer Society among others.”

[RWC] This happens all the time, though the editorial fails to mention it. When Bob from Podunk sues someone for some “injustice” – either real or imagined, does the PG expect us to believe he does so out of his own pocket?

“It was further proof that Big Tobacco will stop at nothing to try to block legislation that sensibly limits the use of its noxious products in the interests of public health. When the lawsuit is heard in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court next week, the public needs to know that the sympathetic party is not the one backed by R.J. Reynolds.”

[RWC] What a crock! When some company or group the PG likes funds “sympathetic plaintiffs,” can we expect a similar editorial from the PG? Sure, when pigs fly.

Here’s what the PG advocates. It’s safe to assume the subject businesses can’t afford the legal costs to fight the smoking ban. Whether they win or lose, they would be saddled with legal costs. A tobacco company allegedly wants to help the business owners on an issue of mutual agreement. What is wrong or sinister about that? Further, no one has tried to hide the fact. Since the business owners can’t afford to challenge a law they believe will adversely affect their businesses, apparently the PG believes the owners should just give up and should not get their day in court.