22 states require fire-safe cigarettes - News

FORT WORTH, Texas>> Laws mandating stores sell only cigarettes that are slow-burning and fire-safe went into effect in five states on New Year's Day. Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Fanning Flames

United States

#1 Jan 4, 2009
Fire-safe cigarettes is not the answere to preventing fires and death, education is. Far more important than making fire-safe cigarettes is making fire-safe ash trays. Most ash trays you see sold on the market are designed to allow the cigarette to easily roll off, causing many fires and deaths. There should be stiff laws to prevent the sale of ash trays that are not fire-safe in design.

Also, cigarettes are sold with a warning label that they are harmful. I believe that it would be better to show on the package ythe difference between a fire-safe ash tray and a non-safe ash tray, and that puffing on a cigarette is likely to cause less cancer and breathing problems than inhaling the smoke.

Further, other more advanced countries like Thailand put anti-cancer causing agents in their tobacco research.

I often wonder how many lives could have been saved by simply using fire-proof ash trays and telling young adults not to inhale the smoke.

I think it should be taught in high schools how to smoke, if you must, a cigarette properly so as to cause little or no lung damage. And a shop class on how to make your own safe, idiot-proof ashtray.

Hell will freeze over before telling people they can no longer smoke cigarettes; global warming supports this idea.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#2 Jan 4, 2009
THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#3 Jan 4, 2009
Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking,[it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts")--not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#4 Jan 4, 2009
preserving freedom one smoking ban repeal at a time.
Manoan

Honolulu, HI

#7 Jan 4, 2009
Thanks to our legislature for passing this smart and simple law which reduces the risks our brave fire fighters too often have to take for others' foolishness.

Who knows, maybe they'll reduce brush fires too?
Mike

Wailuku, HI

#8 Jan 4, 2009
Manoan wrote:
Thanks to our legislature for passing this smart and simple law which reduces the risks our brave fire fighters too often have to take for others' foolishness.
Who knows, maybe they'll reduce brush fires too?
Agree.
JOF

Kilauea, HI

#9 Jan 4, 2009
Fanning Flames wrote:
Fire-safe cigarettes is not the answere to preventing fires and death, education is. Far more important than making fire-safe cigarettes is making fire-safe ash trays. Most ash trays you see sold on the market are designed to allow the cigarette to easily roll off, causing many fires and deaths. There should be stiff laws to prevent the sale of ash trays that are not fire-safe in design.
I think the problem is that people are falling asleep in bed or on the couch and are not putting the cigarette into any type of ashtray at all.

I've only known one smoker that regularly smoked in bed, and she didn't even use any ashtray at all, she used a can or a plate or any other convenient container. I don't think she's going to replace that with a safer ashtray, and I imagine that many people who smoke in bed feel the same way. The "responsible" smokers I know do not even smoke inside their house at all.

There's no way to force someone to use a safer ashtray, but there is a way to force people to smoke safer cigarettes. Are there drawbacks with these cigarettes? Yes. Is it worth saving hundreds of lives per year? I think so, but I am not a smoker.
I often wonder how many lives could have been saved by ... telling young adults not to inhale the smoke.
I'd say that would be as about as effective as sex education that teaches only abstinence. Inhaling is a part of smoking, it's what gives the nicotine buzz. It's not "cool" to simply puff the cigarette and leave the smoke in your mouth. The only reason I see for kids to start smoking is to be as "cool" as their smoker friends, so they are going to smoke just like the cool kids do, with deep inhalation.
JOF

Kilauea, HI

#10 Jan 4, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA
Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
Your posting is way off topic. The original article was talking about safer cigarettes to help prevent house fires with no mention at all about banning smoking or exposure to second hand smoke. Or are you making the claim that there is a safe level of exposure to a house fire?
NO GENOCIDE

Aurora, CO

#11 Jan 4, 2009
Please simply google either: fire safe cigarettes, or, FSC cigarettes. Read ANY of the thousands of blogs/posts from NON-smokers and smokers alike on this issue, from states where this legislation, all un-voted on by the public, has already been snuck into implementation. You will be HORRIFIED. This will be implemented in Hawaii on October 1st of this new year, unless somebody does something about it.

Your governor may have been unaware of the realities of this situation before she signed it into law.

Please beware. May God help us. Take this seriously.
alice

Maunaloa, HI

#12 Jan 4, 2009
I do not smoke,,,thanks.
John Kamaka

Kailua, HI

#13 Jan 4, 2009
People shouldn't even start smoking, polluting the environment and poisoning their bodies to keep those cancer surgeons gainfully employed? It's no different than drug addiction, but made legal because the government can levy a tax on it, that's why its called the "sin tax".

Nothing good comes out of smoking and people shouldn't start or quit and put that money saved in your pocket instead up in smoke.
JOF

Kilauea, HI

#14 Jan 4, 2009
NO GENOCIDE wrote:
Please simply google either: fire safe cigarettes, or, FSC cigarettes. Read ANY of the thousands of blogs/posts from NON-smokers and smokers alike on this issue, from states where this legislation, all un-voted on by the public, has already been snuck into implementation. You will be HORRIFIED. This will be implemented in Hawaii on October 1st of this new year, unless somebody does something about it.
Your governor may have been unaware of the realities of this situation before she signed it into law.
Please beware. May God help us. Take this seriously.
Ok, I did, and I saw lots of references to house fires and how these cigarettes can reduce some of the thousands of house fires started by cigarettes.

And I saw some links to studies made by the cigarette companies themselves saying that these cigarettes are no less safe to smoke as compared to non-FSC cigarettes.

As a nonsmoker, I appreciate knowing that a cigarette is less likely to catch my building on fire.

So I'm not horrified. What is the horrifying part? Lots of legislation is enacted that I don't vote on. I don't want every little law to become a ballot issue requiring a special election.
xyz

United States

#15 Jan 4, 2009
Fanning Flames wrote:
Fire-safe cigarettes is not the answere to preventing fires and death, education is. Far more important than making fire-safe cigarettes is making fire-safe ash trays. Most ash trays you see sold on the market are designed to allow the cigarette to easily roll off, causing many fires and deaths. There should be stiff laws to prevent the sale of ash trays that are not fire-safe in design.
Also, cigarettes are sold with a warning label that they are harmful. I believe that it would be better to show on the package ythe difference between a fire-safe ash tray and a non-safe ash tray, and that puffing on a cigarette is likely to cause less cancer and breathing problems than inhaling the smoke.
Further, other more advanced countries like Thailand put anti-cancer causing agents in their tobacco research.
I often wonder how many lives could have been saved by simply using fire-proof ash trays and telling young adults not to inhale the smoke.
I think it should be taught in high schools how to smoke, if you must, a cigarette properly so as to cause little or no lung damage. And a shop class on how to make your own safe, idiot-proof ashtray.
Hell will freeze over before telling people they can no longer smoke cigarettes; global warming supports this idea.
and the moon is made of cheese
leeward lolo

Chicago, IL

#16 Jan 4, 2009
Cut off taxpayer funded medical services for illness caused by smoking.
If they realize how replusive they smell after sneaking out to "have one" smokers would reconsider.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#17 Jan 4, 2009
leeward lolo wrote:
Cut off taxpayer funded medical services for illness caused by smoking.
If they realize how replusive they smell after sneaking out to "have one" smokers would reconsider.
why sneak out nearly all of hawaiis bars are ignoring the ban.........as are some restaraunts that want to stay in business.
JOF

Kilauea, HI

#18 Jan 4, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
<quoted text>why sneak out nearly all of hawaiis bars are ignoring the ban.........as are some restaraunts that want to stay in business.
He may be referring to how smokers tend to "sneak out" of the office several times a day to have a "quick smoke". Which gives them a nice 10 minute break that most of the rest of us don't get to have.
-DO something about it

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#21 Jan 4, 2009
You better wake up and smell the coffee, "JOF", the so called "Fire-Safe" cigarettes are GENOCIDE.
By the way, you must have done some VERY 'needle-in-a-haystack' selective google searching; you blithering idiot.
JOF

Kilauea, HI

#22 Jan 4, 2009
-DO something about it wrote:
You better wake up and smell the coffee, "JOF", the so called "Fire-Safe" cigarettes are GENOCIDE.
By the way, you must have done some VERY 'needle-in-a-haystack' selective google searching; you blithering idiot.
Well I looked through the first 20 or so links. The only article I could find that was critical about the cigarettes said that they contain more chemicals than non FSC cigs. But the study that it cited as "evidence" concluded that this was not true, and that harmful chemicals were not significantly higher in FSC cigarettes.

So why don't you help me out and point me to this "GENOCIDE" that you claim is happening?
-DO something about it

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#24 Jan 4, 2009
For openers, google: Coalition For Fire-Safe Cigarettes Blog. Read the comments as well as links that have been connected to their blog. This should be a good start for you...
for openers

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#25 Jan 4, 2009
you could google the Coalition For Fire-Safe Cigarettes own blog. Read all the attached links and comments by the general public connected to that blog. This should be a start for you...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
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.

Oklahoma Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Stu's Truck And Auto Wed James Martin 1
"... about my mother, I'm trying to get the fac... Jan '15 DON MEEHAN 2
animal cruelty Jan '15 Matlock 1
set to ban hoods are you kidding me? Jan '15 BS10fold 1
Review: Cheka Co LLC (Mar '13) Jan '15 Not Surprised 12
Debate: Casey Anthony - Apollo, PA (Feb '12) Dec '14 Mel 2
Leechburg Duplex Catches Fire (Mar '09) Dec '14 fire victims niece 3
Oklahoma Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Oklahoma People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:54 am PST

ESPN 9:54AM
Eagles release veteran O-lineman Herremans
Bleacher Report 6:15 PM
Pittsburgh Steelers' Ultimate Free-Agency To-Do List
Bleacher Report 9:00 PM
Can the Philadelphia Eagles Afford to Trade Up for Marcus Mariota?
Bleacher Report10:32 PM
Is Herremans Replacement Already on Roster?
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
What Are the Steelers' Options at Slot Receiver?