Should fireworks be outlawed?

[leckert]

Yeah, I'm figuring that out!

 

[Zolipara]

Its interesting to see that some in this thread claims a ban on fireworks is bad because they should be free to do what they want, yet think that banning smoking in bars is just fine because they dont like smokers.

 

[K-Dawn]

I have no idea why they're outlawed. The law isn't even enforced in Montana. I've heard firecrackers since June 28th!

My cousin bought a roman candle and shot it off. Then he lit off a bottle rocket in it.

 

[Zolipara]

It all depends on where you live. In my country you are only allowed to sell/buy fireworks for a few days before new years eve.

 

[Robert]

I have no idea why they're outlawed. The law isn't even enforced in Montana. I've heard firecrackers since June 28th!

My cousin bought a roman candle and shot it off. Then he lit off a bottle rocket in it.

I think they're outlawed because people overreact.

 

[Renee]

Why is it that some people think their right to fun and amusement, whether it's dangerous, unhealthy, or a nuisance to others, is the only right that should be protected? Why is it that anyone who doesn't like something is supposed to move to someplace else? As if there is some magic place where people can be free from inconsiderate, unthinking, and careless people.

What about being considerate of others? If you want people to respect you and your rights then you should darn well respect them and their rights. How about if people that want to shoot of fireworks go out where it won't disturbs someone's sleep, or risk burning down their house?


I'm not a bad person just because I want to get a decent nights sleep.

Being I'm not one of the party people I'll refrain from responding to these types of issues in the future. It's obvious I'm always going to be on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[leckert]

Its interesting to see that some in this thread claims a ban on fireworks is bad because they should be free to do what they want, yet think that banning smoking in bars is just fine because they dont like smokers.

It seems to be a contradiction to me, too, Zolipara. But, to be fair, I don't think anyone said they 'don't like smokers', they just object to being in a room with cigarette smoke, and, apparently, don't have the ability to go somewhere else.



I think we are hijacking again...

 

[Occlith]

Kinder with krackers... it's the American Way...

 

[Robert]

It seems to be a contradiction to me, too, Zolipara. But, to be fair, I don't think anyone said they 'don't like smokers', they just object to being in a room with cigarette smoke, and, apparently, don't have the ability to go somewhere else.



I think we are hijacking again...

Go somewhere else? That’s just what smokers have always said. Non-smokers didn't always have a choice. Either you put up with the smoke, or you didn't go to a bar.

I don't see a contradiction, it’s apples and oranges. At worse, fireworks are a minor problem to those that have to turn in early, and it's only once a year. There is no health risk to those that don't wish to participate.

 

[leckert]

Go somewhere else? That’s just what smokers have always said. Non-smokers didn't always have a choice. Either you put up with the smoke, or you didn't go to a bar.

I don't see a contradiction, it’s apples and oranges. At worse, fireworks are a minor problem to those that have to turn in early, and it's only once a year. There is no health risk to those that don't wish to participate.

In the 50's 50%+ of the population smoked. We were the majority. Majority rules - that's how it works.

As the % of smokers dwindles, and the Non-smokers become more vocal, there ARE choices.

When restaurants and bars are electing to go smoke free, why do we need a law to force others out of business?

This continues our discussion from the other thread. I think we are "Thread Hopping" or something! I am sure there is a term for it.

Fireworks should definitely NOT be on the list of things that should be "ILLEGAL". Making them illegal certainly does not stop their proliferation, and only makes it impossible to collect taxes on them. States like South Carolina, where fireworks are legal, are collecting the taxes from residents of other states where they are illegal. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[mehastings]

Its interesting to see that some in this thread claims a ban on fireworks is bad because they should be free to do what they want, yet think that banning smoking in bars is just fine because they dont like smokers.

I think they are two totally different things. I'll make you a deal. You don't light any cigarettes in the bar and I won't light any fireworks in there either.

Fireworks (as far as I know) are banned in this state because they are perceived as being dangerous. Yet cars, cigarettes, booze and McDonalds cause more serious health problems. On top of that, it isn't enforced at all. All weekend fireworks were going off all over the neighborhood. I didn't see a single cop. We lit some off at my house where half of us are legally supposed to confiscate through our jobs. Nobody cares, including the cops. It's just tax dollars that Massachusetts is losing to New Hampshire, South Carolina and other states.

As far as the noise goes, I think Renee has a very good point. Just because I think fireworks should be legal doesn't mean I think they should be used to break other laws. Noise ordinances around here are set for 10PM and I think they should be followed. I always make sure the radios go off and the party quiets down before 10. It's just part of being a good neighbor. Before that, however, there really isn't much basis for complaint and I've told questioning neighbors that. Some people may go to bed before their respective ordinances and that is their choice. I work at night and sleep during the day. I have to contend with motorcycles, trailer trucks, and my now retired neighbor and his constant chainsaw/lawn mower/weed whacker/leaf blower use. I deal with it though.

I don't buy much into the property damage issue. I've been to fires caused by many many things, but none caused by fireworks. I know they happen, but they are a rarity. The best figures I could get were for 2002. Estimated total damage was $28 million with 6 deaths (at municipal displays, none at home) but fire damage caused by candles was over $260 million with 150 deaths. Also that year about 8700 people were injured by fireworks (2/3 under age 19) but 208,000 people were injured in bathtubs.

Accidents will always happen, but they happen less with education and control. Perhaps an age limit could be set (like with smoking, lottery, porn and drinking). This might cause less concern over injuries and damage.

Smoking, on the otherhand has been proven a direct cause of many serious health concerns (lung cancer, throat cancer, emphasema, COPD, etc). Secondhand smoke is even worse because it doesn't go through the filter first. Why should I as a potential bar patron/employee have to subject myself to this? Telling me to "go/work elsewhere" is pointless. Before local towns (followed by the state) started smoking bans there wasn't a single bar around here I could go to without having problems with my asthma. I was living in Amherst when they started their ban. After lots of whining, and carrying on the bar owners eventually realized that a smoking ban doesn't hurt business. Smokers smoke outside and non-smokers are more likely to stay longer. I'm not saying you can't smoke at home, in your car or outside, just not in a place where I can't avoid it. Also, I dislike smoking, not smokers. There's a difference. I've dated tons of smokers. I have a live in sibling who smokes and plenty of friends too. They are always welcome at my home, they just need to smoke outside.

 

[leckert]

I think they are two totally different things. I'll make you a deal. You don't light any cigarettes in the bar and I won't light any fireworks in there either.

How, in anyone's logic, does that make sense? (I am assuming you were being sarcastic! I get jokes!)

I always get a kick out of non-smokers saying "I have to sit in a bar/restaurant full of smoke". I didn't realize people were dragged into private establishments and tied to chairs while cigarette smoke was blown into their faces. If non-smokers would stop going places where there was smoke, then, maybe, businesses would be impacted enough to be forced ban smoking, or have suitable, well ventilated, clearly separated, non-smoking areas. There are a couple of places near my home that do not allow smoking, though there is no state mandated ban. It's cool. I don't go there, but if friends want to, and they are good enough friends, I will go, and refrain from smoking. Often, they decide to go to one of my places, and they deal with the smoke.

Instead of boycotting, it is seen as more "correct" to alienate 45.8 million Americans and move our free enterprise another step closer to socialization.

 

[leckert]

Accidents will always happen, but they happen less with education and control. Perhaps an age limit could be set (like with smoking, lottery, porn and drinking). This might cause less concern over injuries and damage.

I am interested to know what you think of my "license" idea a few posts back?

 

[mehastings]

How, in anyone's logic, does that make sense? (I am assuming you were being sarcastic! I get jokes!)

Of course I was being sarcastic. I was trying to say that smoking and fireworks really aren't comparable issues.

I replied to your post, but I did it here in an effort to be a good on track doobie.


Oh yea....forgot this. I read your idea about licensing and I'm not sure. It has merits, but I wonder if it's necessary. An age limit with legislation directly adressing consequences for people who give fireworks to kids might do the trick. Children age 5-9 are nine times more likely to be injured by fireworks than any other age group. This is because parents have no reason not to give their kids fireworks (for this age group the injuries are mostly in states where they are legal). By making it illegal for the child to use them, parents who violate now need to be worried about neglect charges being sought when they bring their fingerless kid into the ED. Personally I think that should happen now anyway, but it usually doesn't.

 

[Zolipara]

I don't buy much into the property damage issue. I've been to fires caused by many many things, but none caused by fireworks. I know they happen, but they are a rarity. The best figures I could get were for 2002. Estimated total damage was $28 million with 6 deaths (at municipal displays, none at home) but fire damage caused by candles was over $260 million with 150 deaths. Also that year about 8700 people were injured by fireworks (2/3 under age 19) but 208,000 people were injured in bathtubs.

You can twist these numbers any way you want if you ignore what is behind them. Normalise the injuries in bathtubs vs fireworks based on how many times a person takes a bath vs how many times he uses fireworks. Is taking a bath more risky than using fireworks?

When you shoot fireworks do you normally do so indoors? How about candles do you use them indoors or outdoors? How often do you use candles and fireworks respectively? A candle is usually used indoors while fireworks is used outside. Starting a fire in a forest etc isnt normally registered as property damage while a indoor fire always is. So property damage dont necassarily tell us anything about the risk associated with using fireworks vs candles. Next up is the deaths associated with the fires. Again fireworks is usually only used on a few days a year where most people are awake and outside to watch it. Even if their house cought fire, they would not normally die inside it. Fires started by candles are often started after people go to bed forgetting to blow out a candle. Then they are asleep when the fire starts and are in bigger risk of death. Again the number of deaths is no indication of how dangerous fireworks is, they only tell us how often candles and fireworks are used. Nearly all of the fires related to fireworks are started on one or 2 days a year where fireworks is popular.

Each year at new years eve there is a couple of fires started because of fireworks(in my country). And its usually not because of people beeing careless. A rocket may still be burning when it lands somewhere you cant really control. If it lands in the wrong spot a fire might get started. However i would say most direct injuries are caused by drunk people or kids handling fireworks. Drinking and fireworks are usually connected.

Smoking, on the otherhand has been proven a direct cause of many serious health concerns (lung cancer, throat cancer, emphasema, COPD, etc). Secondhand smoke is even worse because it doesn't go through the filter first. Why should I as a potential bar patron/employee have to subject myself to this?

The healthrisks of second hand smoking is highly questionable, but i wont bother going into that. The filter on filter cigarettes dont really help much at all, its more of a trick to fool you into thinking its healthier.

If there was such a high demand for non smoking bars why wasnt there any before the ban? As far as i know there was no law that made it impossible to start smoke free bars. Whenever i went into a bar with a smoking and a non-smoking section 95% of the people in the bar stayed in the smoking section. Why is that? I dont smoke myself and i never have, but a lot of my friends do. I find we hardly go out anymore after the smoking ban. Its just no fun when half the people are going in and out all the time. Why isnt it possible to start a bar where you only hire smokers as employees? And you dont have to go in there, its your own choice. You could even have a bar with a smoking section closed off from the non-smoking section where no employees had to enter.

Fact is even though the two issues are very different the way people respond to them are very similar. You dont need to smoke or use fireworks and they are both considered dangerous to you and others. Yet your opinion on if they should be banned or not are entirely dependent on if you like smoking/fireworks or not.

I dont think there should be a total ban on fireworks, but i can understand why some would like it. Allowing people to buy and use fireworks around certain days in the year seems fine to me.

 

[leckert]

Oh yea....forgot this. I read your idea about licensing and I'm not sure. It has merits, but I wonder if it's necessary. An age limit with legislation directly adressing consequences for people who give fireworks to kids might do the trick.

I've always thought that legislation should carry with it a way to fund itself. I thought the license thing would do that.

Not sure I like the gov't getting involved to that degree, but, maybe when things are as dangerous as fireworks, it is acceptable.

 

[Wolhay]

What do you feel about fireworks as dog owners?

Certain fireworks are illegal in Stockholm and permit is officially required for the use of fireworks in general but it's not enforced during events such as new year's eve.

One of the reasons for certain fireworks to be illegal and permit required is probably because dogs risk being put to death if they can't cope with the stress caused by the fireworks.

The dog owners that I've spoken to about this has had very heated opinions about it and they walk with the dogs outside as little as possible during the week before new year's eve.