Economy

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

ziggrl — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:36:42 GMT

I switched a few months ago to one of these self extinquishing cigarettes and IMMEDIATELY I developed a smoker's cough. I used to smoke Newport. They didn't have that feature.

Just so you know, the cigarettes that have FSC on the side of the package are the ones with more chemicals in them.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

ms.painkiller — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:24:15 GMT

P.S . Being as the new Fire Safe Cigarettes have more chemicals that we as smokers inhale, think about ( just REALLY think about) what that means for you non-smokers who are "forced" to inhale our second-hand smoke. I will enlighten you if you can't comprehend this fact, you will also inhale more of these chemicals as well.

"Non-smokers die everyday!"

Bill Hicks,Comedian&Dark poet.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

ms.painkiller — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:06:37 GMT

No. We will not "just suck it up." as you so sweetly suggest. It is not the "inconvenience" of having to re-light our cigarettes that has hundreds of 1,000s of people( both smokers and non-smokers) so outraged . It is the fact that this now VERY noticeable bill was passed with very little public knowledge as well as all the new lovely chemicals that are being added to OUR cigarettes to make them "Safer". For instance... moth ball poison called Naphthalene as well as the additions of more glues which contain several different kinds of Acetate. It is our choice as smokers to smoke,we are well aware of the effects. You have vices that you are well aware of the effects of (one of which seems to be feeling self-righteous.) I choose to smoke,I live in American where I have to RIGHT to exercise my freedoms. You have the right to breed( if you choose) with no laws requiring regulations on this.On a personal note people who want children should be made to meet certain standards.We all know people who never should of had children yet are allowed to continue breeding sans government regulations . I absolutely do not want to see people ***-feeding or hear their child scream,cry ,wail,run around,get spanked,climb on everything in any public place as I feel it an infringement on my rights. I have not WASTED the governments time with petty proposals because after all I am a person and so are "you" therefor I will let you have the freedom to exercise YOUR choices just as I hope you will one day learn to do the same. So please,find another way to spend your time constructively instead of preaching what you feel is right for everyone.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

TMG — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:49:16 GMT

Please tell me that our government doesn't have anything better to do than to pass a bill "protecting" us from our own stupidity. We already have laws that make arson a crime (burning down a house from falling asleep with a cigarette would amount to arson). We already have laws against littering and starting fires by throwing a cigarette out of a car window. What is next??? Fire safe matches?? Are we going to require a manufacturer to make a match that can only be lit by someone with an IQ above 80? Just for the record, I am not a smoker but I am a citizen who is tired of our government passing stupid laws to protect stupid people.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

jengraves — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:30:30 GMT

Oh come on, smokers. Would you like a little cheese with your whine? Are you honestly complaining about the inconvenience of having to light up a couple more times when the FS cigarettes have been proven to save lives by preventing house fires? You think your freedom from having to light up once or twice more is more important than the life that may be saved by these new cigarettes? Come on...

Suck it up, no pun intended. It's for the common good. Just think of all the money you're saving by not having your cigarettes burn themselves down while sitting in the ashtray. Think of the lung cancer that you're not giving to your friend or family member secondhand because the cigarette has sympathetically put itself out.

Be a sport. Suck it up. If you really don't want your cigarette to go out, don't stop inhaling it. Or even better yet, DON'T LIGHT IT TO BEGIN WITH.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

albaby2 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:26:46 GMT

I should have known this was sponsored by a Democrat. Of all the things that need attention in this state, they waste time with this sort of crap. Just think, we pay them around 80 k plus per year and will give them medical care after they spend 6 years wasting our time with stuff like this. Oh, yeah-and they want Police escorts for their heroic service after they die. LOL (HB 4229)

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

SherriKing — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:25:11 GMT

And just who is going to enforce this? It will be like enforcement of underage smoking.......ha!

And what happens if one of these "self-extinguishing" cigarettes actually starts a fire before it extinguishes? I am not a smoker, but come on! The next thing will be requiring food service establishments to make french fries that don't have any ingredients that could cause weight gain..............

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

changeagent — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:58:02 GMT

Umm...jmangan, that is really twisted logic. So you're saying that since current cigarettes could burn down a house with children inside the government should ban them? So it follows that the government should ban everything that has a risk to children associated with it. The first thing that comes to mind is automobiles. Every time someone puts a child inside one of those death traps they are putting them at higher risk than they would be at with a smoker in the house. Should we ban automobiles? What about schools? Lots of children die in schools, and not just from crazed killers, sometimes it's just from practicing sports. The point is, it is not supposed to be the role of government in the US or Michigan to protect us from ourselves, and, our children are our responsibility. Yep, some people are going to die but all of us will be better off if the government just does what our constitutions say they can do.

Furthermore, if they are so worried about the dangers of smoking, why don't they just make tobacco illegal?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

jmangan — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:24:21 GMT

Yea, people should be free to burn their houses down with their kids inside. Why does the government want to take away all our freedoms?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

Poppy — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:18:02 GMT

My God,

You people are killing your cash cow as it is. Why dont you leave the smokers alone and do something constructive with your time? Instead you come up with all of these little weird bills and laws and then wonder why no constituent believes you and thinks you dont listen to them.

As of today we still have a few freedoms that you haven't hamstung, or taxed, but that is only because you haven't yet figured out a way to take or tax that yet.

But give you folks a few more months and I am sure you will come up with reasons to take away or make something else the People of this Great State (those of us that are left) will have to pay for or eliminate or maybe just move to another state.

I just shake my head in wonder at how far we have fallen.

2009 Senate Bill 264 (Ban non fire-safe cigarettes )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the Senate on February 19, 2009

Click here to view bill details.