New laws in 5 states call for fire-sa...

New laws in 5 states call for fire-safe cigarettes

There are 20 comments on the story from Jan 2, 2009, titled New laws in 5 states call for fire-safe cigarettes. In it, reports that:

Laws mandating stores only sell cigarettes that are slow-burning and fire-safe went into effect in five states on New Year's Day.

Join the discussion below, or


Eau Claire, WI

#1 Jan 2, 2009

“I'm not crying... Winning!”

Since: Oct 08

Twin Cities, USA

#2 Jan 2, 2009
Let the smokers have their normal cigarettes. If they fall asleep and/or leave their cigarette unattended and die as a result, oh well. I would call that thinning the herd, if the cigarette doesn't kill them anyway.
Bah Humbug

Saint Paul, MN

#3 Jan 2, 2009
What next?

“Noses run and feet smell”

Since: Dec 08

Compton CA

#4 Jan 2, 2009
Dick In Dixie wrote:
Let the smokers have their normal cigarettes. If they fall asleep and/or leave their cigarette unattended and die as a result, oh well. I would call that thinning the herd, if the cigarette doesn't kill them anyway.
What happens when the smoker falls asleep in their apartment or hotel room and kills innocent people?
TiVo Girl

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Jan 2, 2009
Good. One more way to make it even more difficult for these piggies that stink up the air and throw their butts on the ground polluting the earth. Disgusting habit that leads to disgusting people. Cigarettes are a drug. They should be made illegal like all other drugs. Since the smokers would all cry boo-hoo (they're all crybabies, anyway--just look at their behavior when it became illegal to smoke in a public place) to their legislators if they were, however, this is the next best thing. Make it harder and harder and eventually it will all just go away.

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Jan 2, 2009
How about making them safe for the smoker period?
Stop putting five million chemicals in there to get them hooked faster.
Now, before any smoker jumps on me for being anti-smoking. I used to smoke, I quit. Well, sorta.
Now I chew tobacco instead LOL. So instead of lung cancer, I'll end up having half my face removed.:(
Anybody ever hear that the tobaccy companies actuall put little bits of fiberglass in the chew so it cuts up the inside of your mouth so the nicoting gets in faster?
Yeah, I know it makes me as stupid as the smokers, but unless you've ever battled addiction, shut it.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#7 Jan 2, 2009
I love pollution,I always throw my butts on the ground or from a moving safe cigs are not fire safe,the coals fall off the end much easier because of the new construction.I know I have smoked them.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#8 Jan 2, 2009
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.

Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#9 Jan 2, 2009
Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data.... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.([email protected]) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.

“Domestic Goddess/Housekee per”

Since: Feb 08

Minneapolis, MN

#10 Jan 2, 2009
As a responsible smoker, who enjoys smoking and doesn't fall asleep whilst smoking, I'm not real pleased with these new cigarettes...they go out before I'm done, and taste like crap when re-lit. It's mostly an annoyance, but not enough to make me wanna quit.

“I'm not crying... Winning!”

Since: Oct 08

Twin Cities, USA

#11 Jan 2, 2009
there last 2 nights wrote:
<quoted text>
What happens when the smoker falls asleep in their apartment or hotel room and kills innocent people?
Quite the conundrum. Guess I spoke without thinking real hard. It is early in the morning.

This is one of many reasons I quit smoking 5 years ago and wish everyone else could too. And also makes me glad I live in a house where nobody smokes.
Practically Thinking

Nevis, MN

#12 Jan 2, 2009
Just another gimmick to put the screws to smokers so they'll quit. The government learned its lesson from Prohibition, and have found a better way. If it works, look for them to put an ingredient in Big Macs to make them taste like cow dung, and an ingredient in booze to make it taste like kerosine.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#14 Jan 2, 2009
Al Frankin wrote:
I think all cigarettes should explode. That should take care of a number of problems.
dont worry al I am sure some assasin has his eye on your victory speech should you get one.
Bah Humbug

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Jan 5, 2009
But what about the tobacco taxes that the state so eagerly collects on each pack of cigs. Oh yeah, it's a user fee or some other bogus name for a tax.

Blue Bell, PA

#16 Jan 5, 2009
there last 2 nights wrote:
<quoted text>
What happens when the smoker falls asleep in their apartment or hotel room and kills innocent people?
The same thing that happens when innocent people die from any accident...
for openers

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#17 Jan 5, 2009
"Topix" forum won't allow the link, but google: thepetitionsite -once you are there, simply type in: repeal-fire-safe-cigarette-law s

It's a petition to repeal the (so called) "Fire-Safe" cigarette laws. You can post the real link on blogs other than this one.

Since: Aug 08

Saint Paul, MN

#18 Jan 5, 2009
Won't this decrease the rate at which cigarettes burn when sitting in an ashtray, which will leave more of the cigarette to smoke, which may end up increasing the number of cigarettes a smoker smokes?

Another brilliant government regulation with no unintended consequences! Just like how the mandated low-flow toilets don't require you to flush multiple times when doing #2 to avoid plugging them, which may actually increase water usage.
T in St P

Saint Paul, MN

#19 Jan 5, 2009
I smoke 10 packs a week. I kind of like the new fire safe cigs. They taste better or something. try the Marlboro blues...they taste better...really.

And, Confederate...I'm just a paralegal who likes to smoke, but even I know that the Heartland Institute is funded by Phillip Morris...believing that junk is science is like believing politicians really have our best interests in mind...

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#20 Jan 5, 2009
The spam filter here at the "Topix" board doesn't like the link, but, gogle: thepetitionsite -once you're there, simply type in: repeal-fire-safe-cigarette-law s

It's a petition for repealing the (so called) "Fire-Safe" cigarette laws.

The real link can go on other boards.

Thank you

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#21 Jan 5, 2009
I meant GOOGLE: thepetitionsite

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Oklahoma Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lyle Hall DeVilling (Dec '07) Jun 29 D Johnson 2
News Vandergrift man charged with snapping shower ph... (Sep '09) Jun '17 Sharon McKnight 12
Clean up in North Apollo Apr '17 Nieghbor14 1
Vandergrift Music Thread (Apr '15) Mar '17 Musikologist 4
House fire on Sugar Hollow Road in Apollo Feb '17 Amy Renee 1
News Oklahoma Lawmaker Shares Article Arguing Islam ... (Jun '16) Jul '16 The Proclaimer 91
Your next President will be TRUMP vote here (Sep '11) Jul '16 Mo Reese 3

Oklahoma Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Oklahoma Mortgages