Okla. Bill Would Require Cigarettes to Be ‘Fire Safe’

January 15, 2008

  • January 15, 2008 at 9:43 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    what? how can a cigarette be fire safe? it has to burn something in order for the individual to inhale. if you can get a burn just by touching the cigarette, then it won’t matter of it not being unattended. it just means you need folks to be more attentative of their own actions. make them responsible if it is their cigarette. this is just a bad lame bill just to get attention.

  • January 15, 2008 at 9:43 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    um…

  • January 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Did you even read the article? Obviously the cig has to burn to be smoked, but he is proposing a special paper that extinguishes itself in a few seconds if unattended. If it doesn’t cost substantially more it makes sense.

  • January 15, 2008 at 12:54 pm
    Tom Chong says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yeah, I agree. Add some flame retardent to the paper so that discarded cigs won’t start fires. Speculation is that this was the cause of the SC blaze that killed 9 firemen – discarded cigarette butts.
    Let’s add another chemical to the weed and nicotene and dead bugs and pesticides and whatever else is in those cancer sticks. Another advantage; some lawyer is already getting a suit filing together to sue the paper company for causing cancer.

  • January 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm
    Cut the Crap says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey-if the papers make the smoker puff more frequently (to keep the thing going), will they get to the end more quickly and want another? Hmmmm…

  • January 15, 2008 at 1:54 am
    Joey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We’ve all heard it before. If it doesn’t cost more to make this change and doesn’t affect the “experience” of smoking, why not do it? Then, there are those who say they have a right to smoke non fire safe cigarettes and this is nothing more than the MAN imposing his will on Joe Everyday…

    I just don’t see how people are against making healthy lifestyle changes. While we’re at it, I think we should go back to using lead paint… or did we already do that and I missed it?

  • January 15, 2008 at 2:06 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We are using it, there just hasn’t been a recall so we are unsure which ones have lead.

  • January 15, 2008 at 2:27 am
    TOM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Are they oputting computor chips in cigarettes too? By the price now you would think so. My computor goes out when left alone a minute or two.

  • January 15, 2008 at 2:49 am
    Puzzled says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Can anyone enlighten me as to anything positive about cigarettes? I haven’t heard one thing, everything is negative.

    Given this, why isn’t production/use immediately banned?

  • January 15, 2008 at 2:51 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Smoking makes you cool and makes women want you. Didn’t you learn anything in school?

  • January 15, 2008 at 3:16 am
    Ratemaker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why hasn’t smoking been banned? One word — Politics.

    1) Taxes on tobacco are a politically ‘safe’ source of revenue in most states. The non-smoking majority doesn’t care, and the smokers will continue to pay 3, 4, 5 bucks a pack for their addiction.

    2) A few states still have major tobacco industries. There’s about 10-15 US Senators and who knows how many Reps who would likely lose their jobs for voting for a tobacco ban. Never mind that the farmland could be put to better use.

    3) Dustin’s comment about taking away “rights” is right on the mark.

    4) non-political: Making tobacco illegal would be unlikely to cause any actual drop in tobacco consumption. Some policymakers learned the lessons of Prohibition.

  • January 15, 2008 at 3:27 am
    Michael Vix says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why isn’t it banned? Freedom of choice. Otherwise, let’s start banning all the stuff that is no good for us:
    Cigarettes, Pipes, Cigars, Chew, Beer, Wine, Vodka, Scotch… Fat, Trans Fat, Saturated Fat, Meat, Sugar, Candy, Mercury in Fish, Shellfish, Masturbation makes you go blind and gives you hairy palms, Making Cross-Eyes as they may get stuck, Going out in the cold with wet hair, . . .

  • January 15, 2008 at 3:31 am
    Ex-Smoker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Have they done a 20 year study that indicates whether the flame retardant substance is carcinogenic or addictive? I know that is a rhetorical question.

  • January 16, 2008 at 8:13 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What I’d expect from Michael Vix. All the stuff you mention may harm the individual and his/her body. Fires from weak-willed and stupid people who can’t help putting dried leaves wrapped in paper in their mouth injure and damage others. I’m all for people doing whatever they wish to themselves. I have a problem when their bad habits impact me and my family. Why bother to idiot-proof a disgusting, un-healthy habit? Just because human beings can’t be trusted to be careful?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*