Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: trax1 on January 21, 2008, 10:29:21 PM

Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 21, 2008, 10:29:21 PM: About 3 weeks ago I noticed my cigarettes were burning funny, they would almost die out when I was smoking. At first I thought that I had bought a carton of bad cigarettes but when I bought another carton it was still happening, well I found out why this is, theres a new law that cigarettes have to be fire safe, you can tell if yours are fire safe if on the side of the pack above the bar code it says FSC(fire safe cigarettes), apparently this law has been already passed in 17 states. I think this law sucks, now my cigarettes burn funny and almost die out all the time. If you want to read about it heres an article.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=228784
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Sandman on January 21, 2008, 10:36:15 PM: Guess you'll just have to quit. :aok
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: lasersailor184 on January 21, 2008, 11:00:30 PM: Guess they'll soon mandate the use of dry water so no one drowns.

****ing communists.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Arlo on January 21, 2008, 11:11:22 PM: See Rule #7
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Russian on January 21, 2008, 11:13:58 PM: Solution; Get a pipe....
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 21, 2008, 11:14:50 PM: Quote
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Guess they'll soon mandate the use of dry water so no one drowns.

****ing communists.

Exactly, I wouldn't mind the law and change if the cigarette stayed the same, but it hasn't, like I posted above the cigarette now almost always will come close to dying out while I'm smoking it, and if you happen to set it down for a minute it will die out. Everyone I've talked to who live here where the law went into effect in 08 have noticed the same thing happening when they smoke too.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: RightF00T on January 21, 2008, 11:17:02 PM: I know someone personally that died in a fire caused by a left-burning cigarette. If it makes smoking harder, I see no problem with it. Guns are made to kill just like cigarettes but I've never heard anyone complain about a safety. It makes careless mistakes that much harder to make. This coming from a smoker.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Widewing on January 21, 2008, 11:31:29 PM: Quote
Originally posted by trax1
I wouldn't mind the law and change if the cigarette stayed the same, but it hasn't

So, let's see if I'm following your logic. You don't mind the new law and the change, as long as the change doesn't change anything.. Is that about right?

Look, if the fact that your cigarettes burn differently is a big enough problem to post to a public forum, brother, you don't have any problems. Life is good.

My regards,

Widewing
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 12:41:03 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
Look, if the fact that your cigarettes burn differently is a big enough problem to post to a public forum, brother, you don't have any problems. Life is good.

My regards,

Widewing
Oh, I'm sorry I thought this was a public forum where we can talk about anything, my fault.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Arlo on January 22, 2008, 01:15:27 AM: Quote
Originally posted by trax1
Oh, I'm sorry I thought this was a public forum where we can talk about anything, my fault.

Fault? Heh.

Yup, public forum. Which also incidentally means people can respond accordingly, within reason. And WW's reasoning (and reason) seems fine. ;)

Fire safety appears to involve inhibiting cigs that aren't being drawn on from burning to the filter. Go figure. Kinda makes sense, from the persepctive of ... fire safety .... eh? Suck the cig - fill the lung. And yeah, you claiming that change is fine as long as change doesn't change anything did come across as some rather conflicting mislogic. But hey ... we're all human. :D
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: SD67 on January 22, 2008, 01:19:37 AM: I'm wondering if the new retardant has any extra addictive qualities or contains any new carcinogens to help rotate the client base a little quicker?
Personally I gave the stinky little buggers up some time ago, the Mrs still smokes though so I wonder if we'll start to see the new feature coming to coffin nails here soon too?
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Arlo on January 22, 2008, 01:25:16 AM: Doubt it could be designed any worse for the health without adding something that actually makes it more of a fire safety hazard. Perhaps "Backdraft" brand.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 01:28:24 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
Fault? Heh.

Yup, public forum. Which also incidentally means people can respond accordingly, within reason. And WW's reasoning (and reason) seems fine. ;)

Fire safety appears to involve inhibiting cigs that aren't being drawn on from burning to the filter. Go figure. Kinda makes sense, from the persepctive of ... fire safety .... eh? Suck the cig - fill the lung. And yeah, you claiming that change is fine as long as change doesn't change anything did come across as some rather conflicting mislogic. But hey ... we're all human. :D
What I meant by that was I wouldn't mind if they did something to make cigarettes safer from starting fires as long as this didn't effect the way the cigarette smoked, kinda like adding a airbag to a car, it makes it safer but doesn't effect the way it drives, I guess I should have worded it better.

And yes I did take offense to him stating that this wasn't a problem worth being posted about, when IMO it was.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: SD67 on January 22, 2008, 01:34:32 AM: :rofl
Kinda makes me think of those exploding cigars you see on cartoons.
I actually tried to make one using a little firework when I was in about grade 9. I emptied out a cigarette and put a short thin banger in and topped it up. I left it in an empty packet under the "smokers tree" at school and retired to a tactically safe location to watch the fun. Lets just say the desired cartoonesque effect was far from the actual reality. Poor bastage that lit it up never knew what hit him, he was lucky not to have been seriously injured. Still one would think that this may have taught me a lesson but alas I continued to fool with pyrotechnic japery well into my late 20's.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Arlo on January 22, 2008, 01:41:18 AM: Quote
Originally posted by trax1
And yes I did take offense to him stating that this wasn't a problem worth being posted about, when IMO it was.

Opinions differ. I respect our differences. But I've also ribbed some for what I thought was issues they brought forth that were either trivial or political hyperbole. Others may find mine reflect the same degree of such from their different perspective. Sometimes some of us back off and grant some leeway cause it just aint worth it. RPM may reassess. :)
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Arlo on January 22, 2008, 01:45:21 AM: Quote
Originally posted by SD67
:rofl
Kinda makes me think of those exploding cigars you see on cartoons.
I actually tried to make one using a little firework when I was in about grade 9. I emptied out a cigarette and put a short thin banger in and topped it up. I left it in an empty packet under the "smokers tree" at school and retired to a tactically safe location to watch the fun. Lets just say the desired cartoonesque effect was far from the actual reality. Poor bastage that lit it up never knew what hit him, he was lucky not to have been seriously injured. Still one would think that this may have taught me a lesson but alas I continued to fool with pyrotechnic japery well into my late 20's.

May you, your friends and other possible victims retain all their digits should the bug bite once more. ;)
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: SD67 on January 22, 2008, 01:49:03 AM: LOL no fear of that, now into my early forties I'd like to think I've progressed beyond explosive humour, though if anyone asks me I didn't once teach my eldest son how to rig matchbox bombs on to toilet cubicle doors. :lol
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Thruster on January 22, 2008, 02:17:05 AM: A friend "warned" me about the new "FSC" smokes hitting the IL. market with the addition of cardboard to help extinguish the ember. As I usually try to stay fairly well informed I felt kinda dumb getting the heads up from a guy who still doesn't "trust" fedex tracking (don't ask).

So, since I really don't know the facts nor have I bothered to do any research I guess it's time to weigh in.

Years ago I smoked Nat Shermans, the box bragged about the lack of incendiary additives, the stuff that makes a cigarette stay lit and even spark occasionally. I vaguely recall them bragging about how you could let a Sherman go out and re-light it without getting the nasty stale taste like if you re-light a conventional smoke.

I know with other smokes that's the way it is (pipes, cigars, etc....mostly etc.) so maybe it's not such a bad thing. Although I'm kinda ticked that since they have one less ingredient to add, the cost hasn't gone down a penny. Now I'm feeling sorta ripped off.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: bustr on January 22, 2008, 02:35:03 AM: Someone wanna explain why the evolution of tobacco like most drugs didn't end up with the refined form of nicotein being a oral drug problem. Smoking seems almost like a population contro gambit untill the cost and drawn out amounts of time until death made it to costly to the insurance companies and government.

Whats wrong with over the counter packs of candy laced with pure nocotein or THC? It would be no different than alcohol.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 03:12:51 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Thruster
A friend "warned" me about the new "FSC" smokes hitting the IL. market with the addition of cardboard to help extinguish the ember. As I usually try to stay fairly well informed I felt kinda dumb getting the heads up from a guy who still doesn't "trust" fedex tracking (don't ask).

So, since I really don't know the facts nor have I bothered to do any research I guess it's time to weigh in.

Years ago I smoked Nat Shermans, the box bragged about the lack of incendiary additives, the stuff that makes a cigarette stay lit and even spark occasionally. I vaguely recall them bragging about how you could let a Sherman go out and re-light it without getting the nasty stale taste like if you re-light a conventional smoke.

I know with other smokes that's the way it is (pipes, cigars, etc....mostly etc.) so maybe it's not such a bad thing. Although I'm kinda ticked that since they have one less ingredient to add, the cost hasn't gone down a penny. Now I'm feeling sorta ripped off.

No, these new cigarettes have 2 strips of some kinda paper inserted into them that will extinguish the cigarette if it's not being smoked, you can tell where they are when you smoke the cigarette because this is where it will almost die out on you. If you look at the link I posted in the OP it has a diagram in it that shows you were they are in the cigarette. It has nothing to do with the removal of any addative in the cigarette.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Jackal1 on January 22, 2008, 03:38:29 AM: No reason not to roll your own with what is available nowadays.
Filter Kings, regular or 100s, lights, menthol. You can do them all quite easily.
No additives, no preservatives or any such BS.
Much, much cheaper also.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Angus on January 22, 2008, 03:46:23 AM: But you really have to smoke more intensively to keep them glowing, right?
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: bustr on January 22, 2008, 03:53:03 AM: I read the article. Interesting approach to public saftey along with a reduction of Insurance companies exposure due to property fires by sleeping smoker. I'm wondering how much influence insurance companies had with supporting this idea to reduce thier cost of doing business.

It's funny how behind every human saftey initiative is an insurance company or group of them pulling the strings to curb human activities because they want to control thier monitairy bottom line. I doubt human misery and suffering is as important to insurance companies as their profits and share holders. They are still trying to force the wearing of helmits by under age soccer players. Seems lotsa kids get concussions and pinched neck vertibrae playing soccer these days.

Insurance companies who loose money due to gang bangers not being able to pay hospital fees when they are shot, will probably lobby politicians and support groups who can force public saftey measures like microstamping of primers of ammunition along with micro marking ammunition which info along with your name and finger print goes in a national database when you purcahse the firearm and ammunition. Repeal of the 2nd amendmant by Insurance company saftey decree.

You have to wonder whats next? Snow boarding due to deaths from avalanch. Hotrod building due to death by speed. Sex outside of marrage due to hospitol costs for incurable STD........

Does enyone ever wonder how much of our modern legislation on human activities originate from Insurance Companies computing activity trends then protecting their bottom line?
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 08:17:47 AM: Quote
Originally posted by Jackal1
No reason not to roll your own with what is available nowadays.
Filter Kings, regular or 100s, lights, menthol. You can do them all quite easily.
No additives, no preservatives or any such BS.
Much, much cheaper also.
Unfortunately thats not an option for me, I was in a bad car wreak 10 years ago that left me in a wheelchair with no use of my right arm, so rolling my own cigarettes with one arm would pose a real challenge.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: lazs2 on January 22, 2008, 08:34:19 AM: I quit smoking 20 years ago.. don't like em but.. this is simply more nanny state crap meant to modify behavior.

Like with guns.. if you make it difficult to own them or use them.. (tax and no burn for cigarettes) then people will just give up and bend to the will of the state without the state having to show it's true tyrannical nature.

It's just a "sensible" safety precaution right? who could it hurt (except smokers)?

Demonize something.. then tax and fee and restrict it into oblivion.. It's the socialist way.. it is for your own good.

oh.. and many guns do not have "safeties" at all or.. in the conventional sense.

lazs
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 08:55:46 AM: I just went to the website(http://www.firesafecigarettes.org/) of the group that pushed this law to see if I could find any info or a report on smoking fire related deaths in New York that show they have actually gone down because New York was the first state to pass this law back in 2004, and I couldn't find any. Now I would assume that if there had actually been a significant reduction in smoking fire related deaths it would be posted on there site to back up their claims. I sent an email to the contact email address on the site asking if they had any reports on this statistic, I'll let you know if they respond with the info.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Jackal1 on January 22, 2008, 12:11:22 PM: Quote
Originally posted by trax1
Unfortunately thats not an option for me, I was in a bad car wreak 10 years ago that left me in a wheelchair with no use of my right arm, so rolling my own cigarettes with one arm would pose a real challenge.

Not really. The roller I use only requires the slide to be slid back about 2 1/2 inches then returned to the original position. The roller can easily be mounted to a tray with a little JB weld.
You can roll a pack in about 3 minutes or so.
Cost just a little over a buck a pack.
Title: Re: New cigarette law
Post by: ghi on January 22, 2008, 12:29:36 PM: here in Canada the graphics on pack are disturbing , and the price is more than double comparing with US, about 9-10$/pack in Ontario, even higher in Alberta. ,

(http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2007/apr/images/06_0024.jpg)
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: DieAz on January 22, 2008, 02:08:20 PM: Quote
Originally posted by trax1
I just went to the website(http://www.firesafecigarettes.org/) of the group that pushed this law to see if I could find any info or a report on smoking fire related deaths in New York that show they have actually gone down because New York was the first state to pass this law back in 2004, and I couldn't find any. Now I would assume that if there had actually been a significant reduction in smoking fire related deaths it would be posted on there site to back up their claims. I sent an email to the contact email address on the site asking if they had any reports on this statistic, I'll let you know if they respond with the info.

couldn't find any stats for fires caused by smoking but did find this.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/fire/firedata.htm
from the section under; Annual statistical report based on fire, accident, and burn injury reports from paid and volunteer departments.

year total fires civilian injuries civilian deaths
2003 89,965 631 126
2004 91,404 625 125
2005 97,014 574 106
2006 97,014 580 110

total fires in 05 and 06 are the same, I double checked the pages to make sure.
overall I'd say the NY State FSC law has a minimal impact on the total stats. as you can see, total fires actually went up.
[joke]I bet next on their agenda is "fire safe matches" " it burns 10mm below the matchhead then puts itself out by the exploding water capsule then you're all wet. " [/joke]
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: lazs2 on January 22, 2008, 02:22:42 PM: well then.. I will take the big check I get from the insurance companies for a rebate now that there will be so many fewer fires and put it with the huge rebates they send me every year for all the lives saved by seat belt and helmet laws.

lazs
Title: Re: Re: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 03:09:07 PM: Quote
Originally posted by ghi
the price is more than double comparing with US, about 9-10$/pack in Ontario, even higher in Alberta. ,
Actually the price is starting to get that high here in parts of the U.S, like in New York a pack is around $8 a pack, and here in Chicago a pack is around $7.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 22, 2008, 03:11:00 PM: Quote
Originally posted by DieAz
couldn't find any stats for fires caused by smoking but did find this.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/fire/firedata.htm
from the section under; Annual statistical report based on fire, accident, and burn injury reports from paid and volunteer departments.

year total fires civilian injuries civilian deaths
2003 89,965 631 126
2004 91,404 625 125
2005 97,014 574 106
2006 97,014 580 110

total fires in 05 and 06 are the same, I double checked the pages to make sure.
overall I'd say the NY State FSC law has a minimal impact on the total stats. as you can see, total fires actually went up.
[joke]I bet next on their agenda is "fire safe matches" " it burns 10mm below the matchhead then puts itself out by the exploding water capsule then you're all wet. " [/joke] [/B]
See it didn't effect fires, looks like just more money wasted on making a new law that does nothing.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: eskimo2 on January 22, 2008, 03:43:26 PM: Quote
Originally posted by RightF00T
I know someone personally that died in a fire caused by a left-burning cigarette. If it makes smoking harder, I see no problem with it. Guns are made to kill just like cigarettes but I've never heard anyone complain about a safety. It makes careless mistakes that much harder to make. This coming from a smoker.

As a firefighter I responded to two different structure fires that involved fatalities. The cause of each was attributed to smoking in bed/unattended cigarettes.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Jackal1 on January 22, 2008, 05:37:39 PM: Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
well then.. I will take the big check I get from the insurance companies for a rebate now that there will be so many fewer fires and put it with the huge rebates they send me every year for all the lives saved by seat belt and helmet laws.

lazs

Yeah...I sure miss those helmet rebate checks here in Texas since we beat it down. :D

I`m wondering when someone is going to propose a "life" ban. Life is very dangerous you know.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Boroda on January 22, 2008, 07:06:52 PM: Here cheapest cigs cost about $0.15 or a pack of 20. I smoke "XXI Century" milds, 16 rubles per pack, like $0.70.

Fire-safe cigs = nonsense. Idiots.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: SD67 on January 23, 2008, 02:20:33 AM: Cigs average $10 per pack here in Oz.
We too have the graphic warnings on the packs here too.
It's all another case of the public being told what's good for them.
The cig companies don't care, in fact they love it, it adds to the risqué daring image of smoking. Seriously how many smokers actually think that this is going to happen to them? I'll bet they all think they're going to be the lucky ones. I know I had the same attitude when I was a substance abuser.
The anti smoking lobbyists crack me up too, I seriously doubt they actually want cigarette companies to go out of business, they and the cigarette companies have a mutually beneficial arrangement. Cigarette companies give them oodles of money to pontificate loudly and publicly on how bad smoking is for you, attracting millions of devil-may-care young folk into the ranks of smokers simply because it's "so dangerous it's cool". Seriously, you can't get a better youth targeted advertisement. The anti smoking crowd have given cigarettes the best marketing exposure they have ever had.:t
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: Jackal1 on January 23, 2008, 07:07:51 AM: Quote
Originally posted by SD67
The anti smoking crowd have given cigarettes the best marketing exposure they have ever had.:t

Hehe. Yep.....Harley - Davidson went through the same process.
When the 10 year plan came in they were doing their best to downplay and get away from the outlaw aspect in marketing to get to the Yupsters wallets.
They found out quickly that that didn`t work and did a complete reversal, using the outlaw image in all forms of media ads. Worked like a charm.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: lazs2 on January 23, 2008, 08:14:32 AM: Utopia is difficult to reach...

First you have to crush all individuality and freedom.. as boroda says.. food is more important than freedom.

lazs
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: trax1 on January 24, 2008, 05:06:14 PM: Well they finally sent me an email back in response to my question, and guess what, they gave me a link to some study that mentioned nothing about if deaths had gone down in New York since they started selling FSC in 04, so I'm guessing they haven't. Here's the link they gave me.

http://firesafecigarettes.org//assets/files//HarvardStudy.pdf
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: DieAz on January 24, 2008, 06:43:26 PM: Quote
Originally posted by trax1
Well they finally sent me an email back in response to my question, and guess what, they gave me a link to some study that mentioned nothing about if deaths had gone down in New York since they started selling FSC in 04, so I'm guessing they haven't. Here's the link they gave me.

http://firesafecigarettes.org//assets/files//HarvardStudy.pdf

this line was in this so called study
Quote
This study does not seek to address the effectiveness of the FSSC on reduction in fire deaths and damages caused by cigarettes.

email them back and quote this section near the bottom, then ask them again.

a F.Y.I.
if they give you the run around and you really want to know and don't mind the costs. lawyer up and do a Freedom of Information Act number on them. if they then fail to deliver, lay a Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (link in sig) on them, for violating your rights. sue them, get rich, buy an Island somewhere, drink some lil umbrella type drinks, and be happy.

just a F.Y.I.

for legal advice, see a lawyer.
Title: New cigarette law
Post by: GtoRA2 on January 24, 2008, 06:57:15 PM: LOL I always love to see smokers wine about stupid stuff.

I dont agree with the law, but the comedy value in it from winey smokers is great.

The idea is insane, whats next fire safe matches?