Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 30 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Cigarette law will reduce house fires
Published Monday, December 1, 2008
Fire officials in Otter Tail County are anxious to see a cut back in cigarette-related fires in the area.
A new state law requiring that all cigarettes sold throughout the state be approved as fire safe as of today is the most important law passed in more than 30 years, according to the Minnesota Fire Chiefs Association.
“It should cut down on fires due to careless smoking,” said Fergus Falls Fire Chief Mark Hovland.
But the changes won’t happen overnight. While the new state law goes into effect today, current suppliers will have to go through in-store cigarette stocks before the fire safe cigarettes become the only option.
The phasing out process began a few months ago at SAVE Tobacco Superstore in Fergus Falls. But assistant manager Cheryl Grewe says it could take a while before the store is able to only sell fire-safe products.
Hovland said his department responds to a number of fires related to smoking, most commonly involving alcohol.
“It ranks up there with cooking,” he said.
Underwood Fire Chief Bruce Huseth says the new law can only do good.
“If it prevents fires, it’s got to help,” he said.
The new cigarettes are to be made with a type of less porous paper designed to slow down the rate at which tobacco burns, which will cause the cigarette to extinguish automatically.
Minnesota is the 17th state to enforce the fire-safe tobacco law.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by akmscott (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A bunch of P.C. bull.And it will end yellow fingers as well!
Posted by Pretendyouareanadultpeople (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just think, if the government gets a bit more involoved in our personal lives and habits, we won't have to think for ourselves at all, won't that be great?
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this a joke? Changing the paper on a cigarette completely changes the taste of a cigarette. I know. I roll my own. Have for years. I won't pay that outrageous tax many states have implemented. For $40 dollars, I bought a machine and can make a pack in less than three minutes. Mine cost about 80cents a pack. And the state loses revenue bigtime everytime.
The States best be careful. That $200 billion dollars in tobacco settlement money that is to be paid to states over the next thirty years has already been spent by the states. Estimates are that only three percent went to health care. The rest went to pet projects. Wall street is making a killing off the bonds. If those tobacco companies go bankrupt, the states won't see a dime of that money and you nonsmokers are going to get hit with billions of dollars in new taxes to pay off the loss of revenue the states have already spent. Wouldn't that be a hoot!!! Meanwhile, us smokers will be busy rolling our own. Laughing my arse off. Idiots!!
Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Make the paper of a harder burning substance so that the individual smoking them has to draw harder to inhale. I wonder if somebody will get sued in twenty years after a study shows the implementation of this law caused the deaths of x amount more of smokers.
Posted by bohica15 (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now if they can just snuff out home cooking the world will be a better, safer place.
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"If those tobacco companies go bankrupt, ..."
And if the premise of your argument is false, your conclusion is as well. Tobacco companies are doing better than ever.
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs....
Laughing my arse off at those who are still foolish enough to choose to smoke.
Posted by Callie25 (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Mr. lookitup, maybe you need more reliable sources. I read the same thing in Newsweek. Those whose states' taxes will go up because they already spent the tobacoo money will not be laughing. I don't think MN was one of those though..lucky for you.
Posted by currentresident (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone has COMPLETELY missed the boat on this one...SAFETY.
Posted by watermelon (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I only have one thing to say: ENJOY THE CANCER, FOOLS. It's a good thing they're building that new cancer center behind the hospital. That way you'll have a short trip for your chemo and radiation treatments later in life. Take your smoker's rights and stick em' where the sun doesn't shine.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, since the smoking bans have been enacted more people smoke at home and more home fires are being caused by cigarettes. Enact a ban, cause more fires, kill more people. Way to go!!! It's estimated that since the bans, more than 16 million more cigarettes are smoked at home.
They also finally found the genes that cause lung cancer. Read a nice article a while back about genetics being a major culprit in lung cancer deaths. Maybe all the paranoid freaks out their might want to get tested for those genes.
http://www.directline.com/about_us/news_...
Posted by DogLover (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny thing- Yes, Smokers know the risks, but everyone else eats, drinks and even all that makeup gals, have all led to cancer causing things. Everyone has cancer cells that are dormant in their bodies. No one knows what triggers them. That's how people who have never smoked or been around it die from lung cancer! Yea, it may not help, but it may not be the only cause either.
Safety cigarettes??? Ever notice that the gov't never goes after anything relating to alcohol???? Look at all the violence and deaths related to that! Too many politicians are alcoholics... so I guess you wouldn't pee in your own pool, huh?! I'd love to see them throw taxes on alcohol like they do gas. People all over the country would be in an uproar!!
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/...
Yes, eighty percent of smokers do not get lung cancer. Twenty percent do. Ten percent of non-smokers get lung cancer. So you have a 10% better chance of developing lung cancer if you smoke. Better chance of dying from being too fat than from smoking. So why don't we tax fat people. We could balance the budget in one year.
I do have first hand knowledge of a fire caused by a cigarette. A drunk woman passed out on her couch with a lite cigarette. Burned her apartment building down. She got out without injury and then later sued the apartment complex for unlawful eviction when they refused to allow her to return after the building was rebuilt. She won the lawsuit. The apartment complex had to pay her damages. That's what a jury of typical stupid people decided. Frustrating!!! Now, was the cause alcohol or cigarettes? Apparently, according to these typical stupid americans sitting on the jury, her damages were the apartment complex owners fault.
Posted by pacmomma (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's true that alcohol & tobacco aren't a good mix...BUT you CAN'T enact a ban on stupidity.
Posted by andtongs (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mgdbottled said “Yes, eighty percent of smokers do not get lung cancer. Twenty percent do. Ten percent of non-smokers get lung cancer. So you have a 10% better chance of developing lung cancer if you smoke”. I would have thought a lawyer would be better at math. The difference is not 10% but 50%. Smokers have a 50% better chance of developing lung cancer compared to non-smokers, if we use your figures. I hope your secretary calculates your fees when she mails your monthly statements.
Posted by Redcloud (anonymous) on December 1, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That’s right, the increase from 10% to 20% is 50% not 10%. It may be 10 points, but not 10%.
Lawyers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ieatdasugarcookiecauseimfromff (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do they still allow dancing in ferus falls?
Posted by BaddaBing (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of the finer imported cigarettes are already that way and have been for years. Set them in an ashtray and they go out. And some American companies are now doing the same.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Twenty five percent of the population smoke. Twenty percent of that twenty five percent develop lung cancer at some point during their lives. Seventy five percent of the population do not smoke. Ten percent of the lung cancer cases are non-smokers who develop lung cancer at some point during their lives. Of the 170,000 lung cancer cases every year, 17,000 are non-smokers. You do the math. I haven't had algebra in twenty five years. We're both wrong on the numbers. Smoking is proven to contribute to lung cancer. So has genetics. So has asbestos and radon gas and some work environments. How many folks have radon detectors in their homes? I'd bet you'd have to special order one. Since the many bans on public smoking, more people are smoking more cigarettes in their homes. The more they smoke in their homes, the greater the risk of fire. The point of the article.
Posted by Redcloud (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I did the math. That’s how I know you are wrong. Your method of calculation in your last post is gibberish and makes no sense. Just admit you are wrong and move on.
Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, 20.8% of adults in the U.S. smoke (Gallup and CDC polls from late 2007). If it is true that 10% of non-smokers get lung cancer, while 20% of those that smoke get lung cancer, smokers would be TWICE as likely (not 10% more, not 50% more) to get lung cancer because of their choice. By choosing not to smoke, you'd cut your risk of lung cancer in half (50%).
So is the ratio actually 20% and 10%? That seems a little low. Many sources say "Smoking men are 27 times more likely to get lung cancer than men who don’t smoke and smoking women are 14 times more likely to get lung cancer than women who don’t smoke" - that seems a little high. Regardless, those that choose to smoke (and smoke around others) are putting themselves and others at unnecessary risk.
Posted by Sioux27 (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
10% going to 20% is a 100% increase not 50%. A 50% increase would indicate that your changes of getting lung cancer increase to 15%. There is not a 100% change you will get it but your chances effectively double.
If you have 10 bottles of MGD and want to get a 100% return you would add 10 more bottles of MGD. 10MGD's + 10MGD's = 20MGS's (The real question is who drank the remaining four in the case?)
Posted by Redcloud (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sioux27 you are right, I was wrong. I'm moving on.
Posted by Zepherin (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a victim of secondary smoke, although I don't blame my parents who smoked.....during 1950s we didn't know the adverse health effects to smokers and non-smokers alike....now we do......and yes, safety concerns also are a main factor today....
Posted by PunkinPie (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to find out how many of those non-smokers that get cancer had to sit in a room clouded with some jerk's second hand smoke... I bet we'll see these numbers decline since the smoking ban.
Smoking. Ban. I love it.
Posted by akmscott (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee-non-smokers only get lung cancer fron second hand smoke do they?That is all P.C. BULL put out by the national propaganda council.I have never seen real scientific proof of it unless it was put out by a anti-smoking group-so it's P.C. to lie then!
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mgdbottled wrote - "Since the many bans on public smoking, more people are smoking more cigarettes in their homes. The more they smoke in their homes, the greater the risk of fire."
Yep, and the only reason they are trying to implement these new cigarettes is to stop such fires, thus stopping smokers from killing innocent bystanders. Just like they did with the public smoking ban. Seems like sound logic to me. If you want to kill yourself by engaging in irresponsible (though completely legal) behavior, that's fine. But when your habit consistently and needlessly takes the innocent lives of those around you and there are measures that can be taken to stop or decrease those deaths, the responsible thing for us to do is take those measures. Kind of like the laws we have against drinking and driving.
Posted by clrkrr (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The best solution is people are concerned with this new law...just stop smoking. And then we wouldn't have house fires, lung cancer and people complaining about cigeratte prices. I am so glad I have never smoked and never plan to. I have other worries in life then to spend money on smoke.
Posted by DogLover (anonymous) on December 3, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Part of the statistics are wrong. Many people claim to be non smokers, but I see them at the bar, outside smoking. Social smokers (those that only smoke while drinking) are not counted as SMOKERS. And, for those of you that say. "just stop smoking", it's as hard as all the drinkers to stop that. Pointing fingers doesn't cut it. We don't blame every person that drinks for all the alcohol related problems... do we?
People just need to be responsible for their own actions! Whether smokers or not!
Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on December 3, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mgdbottled - You clearly support more socialism in our daily lives (like in the Average Joe thread). Redistribution of income is one aspect. Meanwhile, the liberals are leading the PC charge to ban smoking in many places (and making "safer" cigarettes). If more government is good when it is taxing me more, why is it not good when it denies you the right to smoke whenever and wherever you like? I guess it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. Do you only want socialism if it does not affect you? Do you laugh your "arse" off at your own hypocrisy?
Posted by ProfessorBanter (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I smoke pipes and drink cheap wine. I usually wake up with a headache.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)