State Law Requires Self-Extinguishing...

State Law Requires Self-Extinguishing Cigarettes - Politics New...

There are 35 comments on the NBC 5 Chicago story from Feb 13, 2008, titled State Law Requires Self-Extinguishing Cigarettes - Politics New.... In it, NBC 5 Chicago reports that:

Starting next year, cigarettes sold in Illinois must be manufactured in a way that makes them more likely to go out if a smoker stops puffing on them.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC 5 Chicago.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
the new hazard

Downers Grove, IL

#1 Feb 16, 2008
these self-extinguishing cigarettes are far more of a hazard than the regular cigarettes. the fire drops off them, burning your clothes, carpet, couch, and car as you drive. obviously whoever passed this law was not a smoker. way to go. how about making wine, beer or alcohol self-evaporating after two minutes? come on lawmakers, it would get you out of the bars a lot quicker and that would definately be a public service.
just candid

AOL

#2 Feb 16, 2008
the new hazard wrote:
these self-extinguishing cigarettes are far more of a hazard than the regular cigarettes. the fire drops off them, burning your clothes, carpet, couch, and car as you drive. obviously whoever passed this law was not a smoker. way to go. how about making wine, beer or alcohol self-evaporating after two minutes? come on lawmakers, it would get you out of the bars a lot quicker and that would definately be a public service.
If you were harmed, sue the tobacco cos for making an bad product. It's the All American thing to do !!

Since: Feb 07

Emigsville, PA

#3 Feb 16, 2008
If the whole rANTI campaign was truly about health, FSC would not be an option. It's never been about health, so rANTIS pushing FSC comes as no surprise.
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#4 Feb 16, 2008
just candid wrote:
<quoted text>If you were harmed, sue the tobacco cos for making an bad product. It's the All American thing to do !!
Believe me candid, nobody is going to sue someone for making a product that prevents disaster when someone carelessly drops a cigarette.
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#5 Feb 17, 2008
Legislators Trying To Reduce The Number Of Fatal Fires
Reported by: Angela Bohon
Sunday, Feb 17, 2008 @05:23pm EST

HAGERSTOWN, MD - The number of Maryland residents who have died in fires has significantly increased.

Legislators are now helping to prevent these tragedies. 93 people died in fires last year across the state of Maryland. That is 55% more than in 2006.

The number one cause: careless smoking.

"So many times, the fire host will tell me,'I’ve done that a hundred times.' Well, it was that 101st time that the problem happened. And, that 101st time can be deadly," said Mike Weller, Hagerstown Fire Department.

However, starting this summer, cigarettes sold in Maryland must meet reduced ignition standards.

"If a person does not draw or inhale on that cigarette over a period of time, the cigarette will self-extinguish,” said Weller.

Also, recently in effect is a law requiring mattresses to contain less flammable material.

"Those two factors, I think, will make a significant difference in the number of smoking-related fire deaths that we see in America," said Weller.

http://your4state.com/content/fulltext/...

How can anybody oppose either one of these important safety measures?! Amazingly some smokers seem to be against safer cigarettes.

Since: Feb 07

Emigsville, PA

#6 Feb 17, 2008
Anonymouse wrote:
Amazingly some smokers seem to be against safer cigarettes.
They are NOT safer in any way shape or form. They contain more chemicals to make them "fire safe".
They make the smoker, smoke more, because they extinguish fast. Lighting up a cigarette numerous times is not protecting anyone's health. Get real!
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#7 Feb 17, 2008
bdjunker wrote:
<quoted text>
They are NOT safer in any way shape or form. They contain more chemicals to make them "fire safe".
They make the smoker, smoke more, because they extinguish fast. Lighting up a cigarette numerous times is not protecting anyone's health. Get real!
The only difference is the paper that's made so that it goes out if nobody is sucking on the cigarette. It's a win-win for everyone. Don't be so paranoid.
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#8 Feb 17, 2008
bdjunker wrote:
<quoted text>
They are NOT safer in any way shape or form. They contain more chemicals to make them "fire safe".
They make the smoker, smoke more, because they extinguish fast. Lighting up a cigarette numerous times is not protecting anyone's health. Get real!
They have different paper that goes out when the cigarette isn't being sucked on, thus avoiding fires. How can anyone lose with that. Get over the paranoia.

Since: Feb 07

Emigsville, PA

#9 Feb 17, 2008
Mousey, You definitely aren't getting all the facts up there in Canuckland.

ARE THEY MANUFACTURING THE MESSAGE OF SCIENCE?

Why wouldn’t Environment Canada want their scientists to talk to the media? What will be the sanctions if they did? Since when can a citizen be muzzled on the sole pretext that he works for the government and everything must be centralized? What does this lack of transparency hide? What are we to make of this? How many other scientists and other civil servants have been subdued to the same line of censorship that we don’t know about? What are the ‘’approved lines’’? Who is approving them?

Troublesome times we live in!

Government 'muzzles' scientists

New policy at Environment Canada makes researchers give 'approved lines'
MARGARET MUNRO, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, February 01, 2008

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists around the country, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no surprises for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.

"Just as we have 'one department, one website' we should have 'one department, one voice,' " says a PowerPoint presentation from Environment Canada's executive management committee that has been sent to department staff.

Environment Canada scientists, many of them world leaders in their fields, have long been encouraged to discuss their work on everything from migratory birds to melting Arctic ice with the media and public. Several of them were co-authors of the United Nations report on climate change that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Since: Feb 07

Emigsville, PA

#10 Feb 17, 2008
"It's insulting," says one senior staff member, who asked not to be named. She says researchers can no longer even discuss or confirm science facts without approval from the highest level.

Until now, Environment Canada has been one of most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.

It says all media queries must now be routed through Ottawa, where "media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call; this could include: Asking the program expert to respond with approved lines; having media relations respond; referring the call to the minister's office; referring the call to another department," the presentation says.

Gregory Jack, acting director of Environment Canada's ministerial and executive services, says scientists and "subject matter experts" will still be made available to speak to the media "on complex and technical issues." He would not explain how "approved lines" are being written and who is approving them.

Jack said the policy is meant to bring Environment Canada in line with other federal departments, but he insists "there is no change in the access in terms of scientists being able to talk."

The reality, insiders say, is the policy is blocking communication and infuriating scientists. Researchers have been told to refer all media queries to Ottawa. The media office then asks reporters to submit their questions in writing. Sources say researchers are then asked to respond in writing to the media office, which then sends the answers to senior management for approval. If a researcher is eventually cleared to do an interview, he or she is instructed to stick to the "approved lines."

University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver works closely with several Environment Canada scientists. He says the policy points to the Conservative government's fixation with micro-management and accused the government of "manufacturing the message of science."

"They've been muzzled," says Weaver of the federal expert scientists who once spoke freely about their fields of work, be it atmospheric winds affecting airliners or disease outbreaks at bird colonies.

The one area exempted from having to go through head office is the weather service, "due to volume and technical nature of inquiries," the Power-Point presentation says.

Under the new policy, Environment Canada employees "shall not," the presentation says, "speculate about events, incidents, issues or future policy decisions." Whether this prohibition covers speculation about the impacts of phenomena such as climate change, which is reshaping Canadian and global ecosystems, is not clear.
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/n...
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#11 Feb 17, 2008
Now back to the subject of self extinguishing cigarettes:
Saying that passage of such legislation would save lives, reduce serious injury and prevent the unnecessary loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and health care expenditures, the Massachusetts Medical Society today urged passage of a bill that would require that all cigarettes sold in the state be self-extinguishing.

Representatives of the Society appeared at a news conference Wednesday morning along members of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, National Fire Protection Association, and the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts. The coalition was urging passage of House Bill 1914 and Senate Bill 1345, An Act to Reduce the Loss of Life Due to Fires Caused by Cigarettes.

Corinne Broderick, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide professional association of physicians, said,“Physicians see the tragic results of preventable fires, including loss of life and the sometimes permanent scarring of burn victims. But physicians also see the hidden damage to the victims, both physical and psychological, that still remains even when their outward appearance becomes normal.”

“Most of these tragedies could have been prevented,” she said,“if cigarettes were self-extinguishing. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that the technology to accomplish this goal is available to cigarette manufacturers, but that most have failed to implement it.”
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm...

What a tragedy that all cigarettes don't have this technology yet.

Since: Feb 07

Emigsville, PA

#12 Feb 17, 2008
FSC contain more chemicals than regular cigarettes. They have to put the chemicals in the paper so they extinguish when not puffed on.

Since: Feb 07

Emigsville, PA

#13 Feb 17, 2008
Also, FSC require lighting more often, which puts more of the so-called "deadly toxins" in the air.

ROFLMAO
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#14 Feb 17, 2008
bdjunker wrote:
FSC contain more chemicals than regular cigarettes. They have to put the chemicals in the paper so they extinguish when not puffed on.
And you're not concerned about all of the chemicals in tobacco smoke?!
just candid

AOL

#15 Feb 19, 2008
bdjunker wrote:
FSC contain more chemicals than regular cigarettes. They have to put the chemicals in the paper so they extinguish when not puffed on.
Are you certain they use chemicals in the paper to make cigarettes extinguish when not puffed on ?
Simbabluenobi

Quilcene, WA

#16 Feb 21, 2008
Anonymouse wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're not concerned about all of the chemicals in tobacco smoke?!
He is not implying at all that cigarettes do not have unsafe chemicals in them what he is saying is that chemicals are being ADDED to the cigarette (paper) which in later years could prove to be as harmful or more harmful to smokers health. Smoking is bad enough with all those poisons without adding MORE to the equation.
JimmyJ

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Mar 28, 2008
the new hazard wrote:
these self-extinguishing cigarettes are far more of a hazard than the regular cigarettes. the fire drops off them, burning your clothes, carpet, couch, and car as you drive. obviously whoever passed this law was not a smoker. way to go. how about making wine, beer or alcohol self-evaporating after two minutes? come on lawmakers, it would get you out of the bars a lot quicker and that would definately be a public service.
Right on target! The lights do drop right off these cigarettes, making them FAR more dangerous and more prone to starting a fire. Example: While sitting in bed and writing a letter, I was holding a cigarette in one hand, and unknown to me the light simply fell off the cigarette, and burned through a wool blanket, bed spread, two sheets, mattress pad, and was starting to burn the mattress topper cover, before I smelled it, realized what happened, and got it out! Mind you, I never bumped, jolted, or made any movement that caused this light to be knocked off, it just simply dropped off, because of the nature of how the tobacco burns when treated with these so-called self-extinguishing chemicals. This same thing has happened several times now in just the last two weeks that I've been smoking these treated cigarettes, burning a number of things, which I've caught. However, it seems more likely than not, that one time soon I'm NOT going to catch it in time, and any result won't be good. This has NEVER happened to me before using this type of treated cigarette, unless I hit or did something to knock the light off the cigarette, in which case I was immediately aware it happened, and prevented even the slightest burn marks. Yeah, this is just another stupid-pendous move by a nanny-style of government, and a move that will no doubt cost more lives. I'd like to start seeing the real statistical results of this law after several years, but by then, how many will have to die, before they realize this mistake and admit it? Are these law makers, in wasting time on laws like this, really doing what is best for us, their employers? I can think of a lot more important issues for them to spend their time on, and our dime. At the least, don't make things MORE dangerous!
Terri Jacoby

Somerset, NJ

#18 May 1, 2008
With the price of cigarettes today,(I live in NJ where they are $6.00 pk) I have to buy more because they burn off to where I cannot light them again. I thought I was going nuts when the Marlboro's I bought kept going out. I was getting mad. The goverment has to realize that there are too many smokers left to do this.
Get with it bush, smokers are going to smoke.
just candid

AOL

#19 May 1, 2008
JimmyJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Right on target! The lights do drop right off these cigarettes, making them FAR more dangerous and more prone to starting a fire. Example: While sitting in bed and writing a letter, I was holding a cigarette in one hand, and unknown to me the light simply fell off the cigarette, and burned through a wool blanket, bed spread, two sheets, mattress pad, and was starting to burn the mattress topper cover, before I smelled it, realized what happened, and got it out! Mind you, I never bumped, jolted, or made any movement that caused this light to be knocked off, it just simply dropped off, because of the nature of how the tobacco burns when treated with these so-called self-extinguishing chemicals. This same thing has happened several times now in just the last two weeks that I've been smoking these treated cigarettes, burning a number of things, which I've caught. However, it seems more likely than not, that one time soon I'm NOT going to catch it in time, and any result won't be good. This has NEVER happened to me before using this type of treated cigarette, unless I hit or did something to knock the light off the cigarette, in which case I was immediately aware it happened, and prevented even the slightest burn marks. Yeah, this is just another stupid-pendous move by a nanny-style of government, and a move that will no doubt cost more lives. I'd like to start seeing the real statistical results of this law after several years, but by then, how many will have to die, before they realize this mistake and admit it? Are these law makers, in wasting time on laws like this, really doing what is best for us, their employers? I can think of a lot more important issues for them to spend their time on, and our dime. At the least, don't make things MORE dangerous!
If what you say is true ( I don't know,I dont' smoke ) write your congresman. Check with you local fire chief and see if he has recived any feedback about cigarette related fires.
just candid

AOL

#20 May 1, 2008
Anonymouse wrote:
Now back to the subject of self extinguishing cigarettes:
Saying that passage of such legislation would save lives, reduce serious injury and prevent the unnecessary loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and health care expenditures, the Massachusetts Medical Society today urged passage of a bill that would require that all cigarettes sold in the state be self-extinguishing.
Representatives of the Society appeared at a news conference Wednesday morning along members of Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, National Fire Protection Association, and the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts. The coalition was urging passage of House Bill 1914 and Senate Bill 1345, An Act to Reduce the Loss of Life Due to Fires Caused by Cigarettes.
Corinne Broderick, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide professional association of physicians, said,“Physicians see the tragic results of preventable fires, including loss of life and the sometimes permanent scarring of burn victims. But physicians also see the hidden damage to the victims, both physical and psychological, that still remains even when their outward appearance becomes normal.”
“Most of these tragedies could have been prevented,” she said,“if cigarettes were self-extinguishing. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that the technology to accomplish this goal is available to cigarette manufacturers, but that most have failed to implement it.”
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm...
What a tragedy that all cigarettes don't have this technology yet.
From what I've been able to find out, States which require this type cigarette have had a dramatic drop in cigarette related fire deaths.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gilson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
anybody know the name billy jo female at dickb... Jul 20 mike 1
josh kissen? Jul 18 thmellyeggs 1
News Obama to talk jobs in struggling Illinois town (Jul '13) Jul 13 Anonymous 153
What does anyone know bout Jesse Huffman? (Nov '09) Jul 12 doit 3
Who do you support for U.S. House in Illinois (... (Oct '10) Jul 10 Ivoted 38
who knows erasmo delacruz Jul 8 Jesse 6
Galesburg's Gay bathouse (Nov '10) Jun '15 Sweet cheeks 4 u 27
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gilson Mortgages