California's crazy new law of the year....

[Bob Cleek]

Each New Years, the papers run articles on the new laws coming into effect. Everybody has their pet "stupid law." There are lots of them. Most are passed by legislators who are too cowardly to say no to some politically attractive, but hare brained, scheme.

My vote for the stupidest law of the year, at least of those I've heard of so far, is California's law that by January 1, 2007, all cigarettes sold in California must be "self-extinguishing." Apparently, they're requiring that cigarettes go out if you don't puff on them. I've only seen one type of cigarette that doesn't stay lit well unless you puff on it, and those ones are illegal already! Don't know what a "self-extinguishing" Marlboro is going to look like. Anybody know?

[huisjen]

You just put a little lead and arsnic in the mix. No problem. Smoke it and you are self extinguishing.

Dan

[uncas]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[John Bell]

Years ago, I worked with Alberto, a man who previously worked as a Phd chemist at Phillip Morris. He told me one of the things they put in the blend was ammonium persulfate, an oxidizer, to help the cigarettes stay lit. So it's not as hard as you think. They'll just change the formula a little bit and they'll go out before they burn down to the filter.

[Dave Lesser]

New York has required self-extinguishing cigarettes for a while.

Here's a C&P from the Harvard School of Public Health, June 2004:

• Cigarettes and lighted tobacco products are the leading cause of fire deaths and the third leading cause of fire-related injuries in the United States.

• The major US cigarette manufacturers have designed reduced ignition propensity (RIP) cigarette brands to meet the New York fire safety performance standard that took effect on June 28, 2004. In all likelihood, New York is the only state in the country where RIP cigarettes are being sold, with the exception of one RIP brand available nationally prior to June, 2004 (Philip Morris’ Merit Select brand).

• For each of the five brands studied, RIP appears to have been achieved through paper banding—that is, the application of ultra-thin paper bands to the traditional cigarette paper. In all likelihood, this is the primary method being used for cigarettes certified by New York.

• Of the five brands studied, the average percentage of full-length burns (the tobacco column burning through its full length) was 10% for the New York cigarette brands tested compared to 99.8% for California and Massachusetts brands, indicating that the New York brands are less likely to ignite fires than the same brands sold in the other states.

• The majority of smoke toxic compounds (14) tested were not different between New York and Massachusetts brands. Five compounds were slightly higher in New York brands. There is no evidence that these increases affect the already highly toxic nature of cigarette smoke.

• Based on cigarette tax data, the introduction of RIP cigarettes has had no effect on consumer purchases of cigarettes in New York, indicating that the New York RIP cigarettes are acceptable to consumers. New York has experienced no decline in cigarette sales or excise tax payments since the standard went into effect, indicating that the New York RIP cigarettes are acceptable to consumers. Cigarette brands sold in Albany, NY cost no more than in Boston, MA

• Based on the New York experience, prior industry objections to RIP cigarettes are unfounded. There is no valid reason why cigarette manufacturers should not sell RIP cigarettes nationwide.

[dmede]

They already have a self-extinguishing cigarette... its called a cigar. :D

[High C]

Just what we need, more safety consciousness. :rolleyes:

[Meerkat]

60-odd years ago, American cigarettes were, by their nature, self extinguishing. The tobacco companies, to increase sales, added, among other things, glycerine to promote continued burning.

Simple solution: prohibit glycerine in cigarettes.

Better solution: prohibit all additives in cigarettes. They're more intended to increase addictiveness than flavor anyway (a matter of public record).

Wouldn't be a bad idea to terminate tobacco farm subsidies too.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Wouldn't be a bad idea to terminate tobacco farm subsidies too.This is strange. I hadn't looked into this for a while and Meer's comment started me wondering. According to a Website called the EWG Farm Subsidy Database (http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco), tobacco subsidies have fallen from $345 million in 2000 to $5,281 (that is not a typo) in 2004. According to the EWG, there were no tobacco payouts between 1995 and 1999. Did someone repeal these when I wasn't looking?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

In Britain, and just about anywhere that I travelled in the days when I smoked, ready rolled cigarettes in packets contain an oxidising agent (I confess that I thought it was saltpetre) which keeps them burning. Tobacco sold for hand rolling does not. So a "rollie" would go out if not dragged on.

[Del Lansing]

What Andrew said. They have to add something to keep them burning, now they must add something to make them go out. Straight tobacco like in a cigar will go out on its' own. They should just ban all adulterants.

[Mrleft8]

I'd prefer that they banned all tobaco.

[Donn]

I'd miss cigars.

[Art Read]

"I'd prefer that they banned all tobaco."

YEAH! Garlic and perfume and smelly dogs too!

[Art Read]

...and cellphones, and SUVs, and jetskies, and domestic beer, and Birkenstocks, and boxed wine, and carry-on luggage, and... :rolleyes:

[High C]

Originally posted by Del Lansing:
...They should just ban all adulterants.Well, he was impeached. ;)