Rebuttal to the Rebuttal

Once again TNT fireworks is feeding bad or misleading or incomplete info to the fireworks sellers. We will rebut their arguments here using the same headings as used in the sample ballot:

The Truth on Fireworks Injuries:

Fist off all they have absolutely no documentation to back up the claim of no injuries or property damage. First of all some injuries and property damage may not have been reported. Secondly this information flies in the face of all the other statistics on this site and others. Please contact LAAG and we will provide you with what ever documentation you need concerning injuries. Also even if their statistic were true, we were all safe until 9/11 or "3/5" the date of the Miller Dunrobin explosion. Every year is a new year. You cant blindly assume noting with happen this year as nothing did last year. Statistics have a way of catching up with you.

Just a brief recap here: AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Fireworks-Related Injuries to Children

And this also flies in the face of their "statistic": "Safe and sane” fireworks caused more injuries than illegal fireworks, especially to preschool children. The term “safe and sane” fireworks is used to refer to devices such as sparklers, fountains, snakes, party poppers, and ground spinners. ....As a promotional technique, the fireworks allowed under rules of this type have been labeled “safe and sane” fireworks by their advocates. Laws based on this approach allow considerable private use of fireworks, but exclude any explosive type devices that lift off the ground that are allowed under Federal law. In 2004, sparklers, fountains, and novelties alone accounted for two-fifths (40%) of emergency-room fireworks injuries, including most injuries to pre-school children (ages 4 and under) where the type of fireworks device was specified." John R. Hall, Jr. Fire Analysis & Research Division, National Fire Protection Association, June 2006

The Truth on Pollution:

So the sulfur smelling haze than lingers in the air for hours and smells so go is not polluting? Does TNT fireworks have testing to prove that? Ill bet not. And fireworks contain no perchlorates? Thats odd. I wonder why this letter was sent to TNT fireworks regarding perchlorates? I guess we will have to follow up on this later. Any rational person knows that fireworks pollute. Don't let the money blind you as it has the fireworks sellers.

The truth on Noise:

How silly. Wanting to ban emergency vehicle sirens. Are the fireworks peddlers so addicted to money that they compare life saving emergency vehicles to things that blow off smoke and fire? Oh Please. Also there are regulations on vehicle noises, such as sirens and horns (trains busses, cars etc.). Obviously smart people make exceptions for "necessary" noises. And I have not seen a rash of pet "escapes" due to fire trucks lately. But on the 4th of July just ask the humane society how pets just "love" fireworks and how they run away to escape them. Again this is not the entire issue. Just one of many nuisance and safety issues stacked up against TNT Fireworks spending/lobbying power.

The truth on Fundraising:

Oh yes the sky is falling. One thing not mentioned is what happened to all the other Lakewood groups that lost out on the right to sell fireworks when then groups were paired from about 40 to the current 26? Did they wither away? No. They found other means to raise the funds. What do all the other clubs so in all the other cities in California where fireworks cannot be sold? Have Lakewood clubs asked? Many of these clubs also are part of larger national organizations (such as the YMCA) that can either assist with funding or give clubs guidance on seeking funding. I am not proposing bake sales and car washes. That type of a statement shows just how uninspired and unimaginative the fireworks sellers are. They are going to have to get a little more innovative than relying upon contraband for revenue. I ran a sports team with over 100 members (also its a niche sport). It raises money for uniforms, team trips, etc. They don't sell fireworks and never have. The team just raised close to $10,000 cash (not including merchandise) this year from a local merchant just based upon one meeting. You know we have lots of real estate agents in this city call doing very well. Why don't their national companies pony up some marketing money for a team? We have entire stadiums now built with private money and named after the company (i.e. 3com park).

I am not saying its easy. Sure fireworks money is easy. So is selling drugs and they are really profitable. But the fireworks sellers have got to wean themselves off this hazardous product. The got a one year reprive from the city council. What have they done in this last year to look for other funding. Likely nothing.

The truth on Fireworks:

Again no sources cited. The bold statement that 270 California "communities" allow groups to "sell" fireworks is a bit vague. There are 478 incorporated cities in California, 58 counties and three counties with no incorporated cities. So if we assume that 270 is a correct number (which I doubt) then 56% of the cities allow fireworks use or sale (it is not clear if the word community means "city"). Typically if a county bans fireworks they are banned in call areas of the county except for incorporated cities that allow them. Lets look at some figures in Southern California:

Los Angeles County fireworks are banned
In 38 cities they are allowed
In 48 cities they are banned

In Orange County fireworks are banned
In 5 cities they are allowed
In 17 cities they are banned

In Ventura County fireworks are banned
In 1 city they are allowed
In 24 cities they are banned

In San Diego County fireworks are banned
There are 18 cities in the county. Unknown what percentage ban fireworks.

In Riverside County fireworks are banned
In 4 cities they are allowed
In 13 cities they are banned

In San Bernardino County fireworks are banned
Out of 31 cities they are only allowed in 2-3 cities.

Vote YES on Measure "D" to ban fireworks in Lakewood

"Safe and Sane" is "safe"...until recalled

These are safety related recalls by TNT Fireworks (aka "American Promotional Events Inc.") in the last four years as posted on the Consumer Product Safety Commission website at www.cpsc.gov

There are no injuries listed below because at the time these press releases are created no injuries were reported to the CPSC. There may have been injuries after this release date, or injuries that were not reported as the injured parties were not aware of the recall.

June 22, 2005
Release #05-206

CPSC, American Promotional Events Inc. Announce Recall of Fireworks

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of Product: Bat Out of Hell and Powder House fireworks

Units: About 9,000 units

Importer: American Promotional Events Inc., of Florence, Ala.

Hazard: These fireworks devices could unexpectedly tip over during use, posing a serious injury hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: None.

Description: The recall involves Bat Out of Hell fireworks with model number CP1129 and Powder House fireworks with model number CP1130. The model number is printed on all four sides of the device above the warning label. These are 1.4g consumer fireworks devices that consist of 16 multiple shots in the shape of a square cube. The name of the product is printed on the packaging, along with the word “TNT.”

Sold At: Fireworks retailers, including display stands and tents in states permitting the sale of consumer fireworks, from May 2005 through June 2005 for about $20.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Return the recalled fireworks to the store where purchased for a full refund or contact American Promotional Events for instructions.

Consumer Contact: American Promotional Events at (800) 243-1189 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.TNTFireworks.com

Firm’s Media Contact: Dennis Revell, (916) 443-3816

view recall notice


~~~~~~~~~~
June 25, 2004
Release # 04-170

CPSC, American Promotional Events Inc. Announce Recall of Fireworks

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firm below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: “T6” Titanium 6 Break Artillery Shell Fireworks

Units: About 11,700 units

Importer: American Promotional Events Inc., of Florence, Ala.

Hazard: These fireworks could have a defective fuse that can fail to ignite the device. Consumers who attempt to re-light the fuse could suffer serious injury. CPSC advises consumers never to re-light any fireworks that do not ignite after the first attempt.

Incidents/Injuries: There has been one report of a fuse failure from a consumer. No injuries were reported. Subsequent testing by the firm confirms that an unknown number of these shells could have defective ignition fuses.

Description: These are “T6” Titanium 6 Break Artillery Shell fireworks with model number “CP1104.” The model number is on the launch tube and packaging. It is a 1.4g consumer fireworks device that consists of a colorful plastic launch tube and six break display shells in a display box. “T6” “Six Break Artillery Shell” and “TNT” are written on the front of the display box, and “Titanium 6 Break” is on the back of the display box. Only model number CP1104 artillery shell fireworks are included in this recall.

Sold at: Fireworks retailers, including display stands and tents in those states permitting the sale of consumer fireworks, from May 2004 through June 2004 for about $40.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Return the entire fireworks device to the store where purchased for a full refund or contact American Promotional Events for further instructions.

Consumer Contact: American Promotional Events, Inc, at (800) 243-1189 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.TNTFireworks.com
view recall notice

~~~~~~~~~~~
July 2, 2003
Release # 03-157

CPSC, American Promotional Events Inc. Announce Recall of Fireworks

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firm below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: "TNT" Reloadable Tube Fireworks

Units: About 22,700

Importer: American Promotional Events Inc., of Florence, Ala.

Hazard: The firework device has a defective base and can break during launch. If reused, the launching device could then send fireworks in unintended directions, possible causing injury.

Incidents/Injuries: There have been two reports of the base of these fireworks devices breaking. No injuries were reported.

Description: The firework device consists of a black base with a multicolored PVC material tube having approximate dimensions of 11 inches high by 1.25 inches in diameter. Each product is sold with six shells with fuses. The product is labeled "Model No. CP983," "Item No 460070," "TNT," and "#1 SELLING BRAND."

Sold at: Firework display stands and tents and retail operations in those states where the sale of consumer fireworks is legal. They were sold from June 2003 through July 2003 for about $35.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Return the entire firework device to the retailer for a refund or contact TNT for further directions.

Consumer Contact: American Promotional Events Inc., (TNT) at (800) 243-1189 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.

view recall notice

The "TNT campaign" flyers

As expected the TNT fireworks company is pulling out all the stops. Sor far FOUR color flyers mailed to thousands of homes in Lakewood. Campaign finance reports show "American Promotional Events, Inc., dba TNT Fireworks," in Fullerton, has as of Oct. 21 poured $40,000 in cash into a campaign to defeat Lakewood Measure D. The only other reported cash contribution as of Oct 21. is from the Lakewood Lions Club...for $250!! So I guess we can see who is really benefiting from the fireworks...TNT as they are the one spending the money to keep them.

That's a drop in the bucket given the size of TNT. The TNT flyer notes that "major funding" (like 99.9%!) for the flyers was provided by TNT Fireworks. The flyers lead you to believe that TNT is in Lakewood by using some residence address when the company is based in Alabama with a warehouse in Fullerton. [According to its website: "TNT® Fireworks is the largest distributor of 1.4G Class C Common Fireworks in the U.S....In 2004, TNT® partnered with Millennium Pyrotechnics, the UK’s largest privately owned importer and supplier of retail and display fireworks.]

The TNT flyers headlines mentions that clubs will miss out on $300,000 fireworks funding. Hmmm No mention of the likely $700,000 per year that TNT might loose. Do you think that is why TNT spent its money on the flyers? Oh and how many employees of TNT work in Lakewood? How many employees could TNT have in California when Chinese companies make the fireworks and clubs distribute and sell them for no wages? I guess those facts were not "relevant" to put in the flyer. (No one makes the fireworks here in the USA as that would cut into TNT's profit margin. Also no one in California would want to live near a fireworks factory (safe and sane or otherwise) as it would be too dangerous. That would be as popular as lining next to a prison or oil refinery.)

Quote from the TNT flyer: "The laws were enforced last 4th of July and there were no problems" Did TNT or any of the clubs offer to pay for part of this extra $100,000 police protection cost? NO. Did they assist with enforcement? NO. No problems? The problems were less than 2005 but by no means were there "no problems" Over 125 citations were issued in July 2006 (no word yet on the number of convictions from the $100,000 spent on law enforcement and the anti-fireworks abuse campaign)

The TNT flyers list 27 community groups but very cleverly does not mention that they all endorsed the flyer or the No on D measure. I suppose LAAG could send out a flyer with thousands of pets names on it saying they all support the YES on D Measure due to the fact that pets don't like fireworks (good thing for TNT that pets can't vote).

Quote from the TNT flyer: "Measure D won't prevent another Dunrobin [explosion]" Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. One thing is for sure: the less fireworks around the less likely that FIRES or explosions will happen. Would preventing one house fire (costing $600,000) be worth banning fireworks? Also there were other fires and explosions in Lakewood before Dunrobin where fireworks allegedly played a role. They just were not well publicized as they were smaller fires/explosions.

Another point. At the cross examination of the Sheriff's bomb squad detective in the Miller Dunrobin trial he was asked if it was possible that Miller was using powder and other components from safe and sane fireworks to create larger illegal fireworks. He said it was possible. But as much of the material was burned in the explosion it was had to know. Also Miller's attorney tried to use the legal fireworks use in the city as well as the lax attitude towards the "free for all" activity going on July 4th in Lakewood as justification for Miller's illegal use. Thats right. "Safe and Sane" fireworks being used as an excuse for illegal use. This tactic will likely be used in the hundreds of illegal fireworks prosecutions we have coming up. Once again "safe and sane" fireworks creating an atmosphere friendly to scofflaws. So when you hear "Measure D won't prevent another Dunrobin [explosion]", think again.

Finally as was argued in the Buena Park fireworks referendum in 2004, the issue really is not funding for the clubs but funding for the fireworks companies. The clubs just don't want to bother look for another source as they have been lead to believe (by TNT) that fireworks are the only, or at least an easy source, of quick cash, regardless of the price paid for their use by society as a whole. There is lots of discussion about team uniforms and other sports related subsidies that would be hurt by loosing fireworks. Of course none of this is detailed in any fashion. What percentage of the families with these young children allegedly benefiting from this subsidy actually are spending $100-300 per year on the very fireworks that the clubs are selling? Wouldn't it be simpler to cut TNT's huge profit motive out of the equation and take that money spend on smoke and sparks and donate it to the club and get a tax deduction on top of it? Don't you think that is what other cities do where there are no fireworks (the vast majority of cities in California) along with other corporate sponsorship grants? Think about it. You spend $100.00 on fireworks about 30% or so of that gets to the club. The rest goes to TNT. With a donation 100% goes to the club so you need 60-70% less money with TNT out of the equation. And no one has to work a booth selling fireworks!

The more you think about Measure D the more you realize a "YES" vote is the common sense way to go...

Buena Park Ballot statements in 2004 fireworks referendum

Does this sound Familiar? Same people same tactics...its all about money not safety.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE D (from Buena Park Ballot statements in 2004 fireworks referendum)

Buena Park is one of five remaining cities in Orange County that permits the sale and discharge of fireworks. The other 28 cities banned fireworks to protect the safety and property of their citizens. Because of the ban in surrounding cities, Buena Park’s population swells to over 250,000 each Independence Day. Crowds block streets, take over parks and overrun neighborhoods as they set off legal AND illegal fireworks. Unfortunately, discharging “state approved fireworks” masks illegal fireworks, making law enforcement nearly impossible. The resulting chaos and mess are overwhelming. Buena Park endures each Independence Day one spark away from disaster. Calls to your Police and Fire Departments skyrocketed 400% in the last three years. The alarming truth is no Police Department can protect its citizens from a quarter-million people “legally” discharging dangerous explosives. For six hours each year, Buena Park becomes “a war zone!” The vast majority of California cities prohibit fireworks, calling them “a serious hazard to health, welfare and safety of citizens.” Anaheim outlawed fireworks in 1987 after fireworks burned down an apartment complex, leaving over 200 people homeless. Citizens of Cerritos demanded fireworks be outlawed in 1989 after a home burned to the ground. On July 4, 2002, a nine-year-old boy in Buena Park was killed in front of his family and hundreds of people as fireworks masked the gunshot that ended his life. Today, we have the opportunity to act before another tragedy devastates our community. Fireworks manufacturers claim banning fireworks is unpatriotic. Are cities like Anaheim, Cypress, and Brea less patriotic than Buena Park? The manufacturers’ real issue is losing over $1,000,000 from fireworks sales. Nonprofit groups contend that losing fireworks revenues would be devastating, yet these and similar groups thrive in surrounding cities like La Palma, Fullerton, and Fountain Valley without money from fireworks. The true issue is safety in our community.

s/ Arthur C. Brown, Councilman City of Buena Park
s/ Donald W. McCay, Councilman City of Buena Park
s/ Gary Hicken, Chief of Police Buena Park Police Department
s/ Charles W. Prather Jr, Fire Chief Orange County Fire Authority

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE D Claiming 6,800 people “rallied” to keep fireworks IS NOT TRUE. The petition asked that the ordinance “...be submitted to a vote of the people ...” Measure D is responding to that request. Firework manufacturers claim they paid the cost of Police services last Independence Day. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The 100 Officers needed to keep you safe cost our local taxpayers over $50,000. Next year will cost more! Fireworks manufacturers want you to believe cities that already ban fireworks have the same problems as Buena Park. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Anaheim PD did not put on one extra Police Officer last year. While 20 Officers patrolled Anaheim, a city 5 times the size of Buena Park, 100 Police Officers and added Fire Department personnel were not enough in Buena Park. Fireworks manufacturers repeatedly say Measure D will take away funding from local nonprofit groups and is therefore unpatriotic. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Nonprofit groups thrive in our surrounding communities without fireworks money. The loss of fireworks money has nothing to do with patriotism. Advocates say they will be giving up the traditional way to celebrate Independence Day. This is a false issue. Shooting fireworks in the street makes no one patriotic and is no less a tradition than attending a community fireworks display with your family, such as the one your City sponsors each year at Bellis Park. The real issue is safety. Your vote should be based on providing a safe Buena Park. Vote YES on Measure D to ban fireworks in Buena Park.

s/ Arthur C. Brown, Councilman, City of Buena Park
s/ Donald W. McCay, Councilman, City of Buena Park
s/ Gary Hicken, Chief of Police, Buena Park Police Department
s/ Charles W. Prather Jr, Fire Chief, Orange County Fire Authority

Long Beach Press Telegram endorses YES on measures C and F to ban street parking

Yes on measures C, F
Lakewood can park the RV flap for good on Election Day.
Article Launched:10/19/2006
Long Beach Press Telegram

Getting Lakewood to let go of the long-standing feud over recreational vehicle and trailer parking is a bit like getting a starved terrier to surrender a London broil. We can hardly imagine Tomorrow's City Today without its best-known battle of yesterday (our apologies to those who want their own school district).

But it's time to curb the RV and trailer issue. Residents have an opportunity to settle a major portion of the exhausting flap by voting yes on measures C and F on the Nov. 7 ballot. We back both.

The measures would offer clarity to the various interpretations of the existing law, which is abused in spirit, if not letter, and, more importantly, get those mammoth RVs and trailers off the streets most of the year while still allowing proper loading and unloading.

The measures are essentially the same, but Measure C regulates RVs while Measure F applies to trailers. The initiatives would ban on-street RV and attached and unattached trailer parking except for limited periods of time. They would require residents to get permits, which would be good for one to three days, up to 16 days a year, for the times they are outfitting their vehicles for trips.

Readying RVs for sojourns would be the only legal reason to park them on the street. This will be a problem, of course, for those who use their RVs as guest rooms, but the practice of suburban camping is incompatible with today's tidy tracts.

Under the new system, Lakewood residents would simply apply for and print out their permits from an online website, providing they have registered their rigs with City Hall. The law would also require three days between permits so residents could load their trailers, leave town for a weekend, come back and unload it.

These new laws would go beyond easy-to-manipulate existing city codes, which allow RV and semi-trailer parking on city streets for up to 72 hours in the same spot. Many owners just move their rigs across the street or down a few feet from their original locations to meet the law.

Neither measure would apply to driveway or backyard parking of RVs or trailers, which are subject to different requirements. We can't see telling people what they can do on their own property as long as they follow existing regulations.

But city streets are another matter. On-street RV parking benefits the few - RV and trailer owners - to the detriment of many. This is the opposite of the utilitarian spirit that pulses through Lakewood.

In addition, the rolling motels detract from the appearance of the city's attractive postwar neighborhoods, which went from good to great in the recent housing boom as residents pulled out equity to make improvements and newcomers came in and made their own fixes.

Streets free of RVs and trailers could certainly do nothing but help property values threatened by a slowing market.

RVs and trailers, when not in use, generally belong in parks and lots made for such uses or out of sight on private property. The arguments to allow RVs to remain on public streets have finally run out of gas.

Press Telegram Endorses YES on Measure "D" to ban Fireworks

Yes on Measure D
Lakewood fireworks ban would improve quality of life.

Article Launched:10/18/2006
Long Beach Press Telegram

A Nov. 7 ballot measure that would ban the sale and use of all fireworks in Lakewood would make the city safer, quieter and more enjoyable on the Fourth of July. For those reasons, and a couple more we'll explain in a moment, we are urging residents to vote Yes on Measure D.

The decision to endorse the ban was not arrived at easily, and we are sympathetic to the youth sports teams and other non-profits that rely on the sale of "safe and sane" fireworks for funding. The majority of residents handle fireworks properly, and they will pay the price.

But this is a public safety issue, and as an accident last year illustrated, the city needs to put safety first.

There are enough scofflaws in Lakewood to make Fourth of July unpleasant in many neighborhoods. Certain streets turn into virtual war zones, where residents mix safe and sane displays with the illegal stuff from Mexico and Nevada. Inside the smoke that gathers on the streets are children, the occasional moving car, people drinking alcohol, dogs, music and other distractions.

And the smoke and crowds make it hard for sheriff's deputies to tell who is breaking the law and who isn't. And then the deputies get criticized - sometimes by us - for
not stamping out the illegal fireworks or citing enough people. That's not entirely fair since conditions, and the community's generally lax attitude about fireworks, make it hard for deputies to do their jobs. They can't always see down dark and smoky streets.

An outright ban would simplify things. It would encourage residents to attend public fireworks displays, which always trump amateur hours anyway, and keep residential tracts more peaceful over a holiday that drives away many residents who don't want to deal with the noise.

This was all brought to, um, light in March 2005, when Lakewood resident Brian Miller accidentally blew up his illegal fireworks stash - and part of his rental house on Dunrobin Avenue - when he went for his morning smoke. That mistake, which netted Miller a felony conviction and a five-year prison sentence, was a wake-up call we think the city should heed.

Neighbors had complained about Miller's cache of illegal fireworks for years, but sheriff's investigators said they couldn't catch him in the act.

But the real problem is the live-and-let-live ethos of Lakewood. People there are good at tending to their own gardens, maybe too good. They look the other way sometimes when the Millers of their community push the limits.

But public safety is everyone's business, and Lakewood needs to stick its collective nose in places it normally wouldn't.

Measure D would make that easier, since residents could report every fireworks incident with confidence and before they go back to minding their business.

What does "Safe and Sane" mean?

Safe and Sane was likely a term proposed by fireworks companies to the State legislature in 1974 when the term was first used in the California Law. It does not mean that fireworks are "safe". It just means they are not banned as "dangerous" fireworks. The law is reprinted below.

Safe and Sane fireworks can injure people even if used correctly, as they can malfunction.

Safe and Sane does not mean safe for pets, minors, or the environment.

Safe and sane fireworks can be dangerous if not used by competent (non intoxicated) adults (over 18)

Safe and Sane fireworks are easily modified (such as removing parts) to become dangerous.

Safe and Sane fireworks can be used improperly (thrown in the air) to become dangerous.

Safe and Sane fireworks can be used to create dangerous fireworks or explosive devices.

Storage of Safe and Sane fireworks can create a fire hazard, especially when combined with other items in a garage

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 12500-12534

12500. This part shall be known and may be cited as the State Fireworks Law.

12505. "Dangerous fireworks" includes all of the following: (a) Any fireworks which contain any of the following:[list of chemicals omitted] (b) Firecrackers. (c) Skyrockets and rockets, including all devices which employ any combustible or explosive material and which rise in the air during discharge. (d) Roman candles, including all devices which discharge balls of fire into the air. (e) Chasers, including all devices which dart or travel about the surface of the ground during discharge. (f) Sparklers more than 10 inches in length or one-fourth of one inch in diameter. (g) All fireworks designed and intended by the manufacturer to create the element of surprise upon the user. These items include, but are not limited to, auto-foolers, cigarette loads, exploding golf balls, and trick matches. (h) Fireworks known as devil-on-the-walk, or any other firework which explodes through means of friction, unless otherwise classified by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to this part. (i) Torpedoes of all kinds which explode on impact. (j) Fireworks kits. (k) Such other fireworks examined and tested by the State Fire Marshal and determined by him, with the advice of the State Board of Fire Services, to possess characteristics of design or construction which make such fireworks unsafe for use by any person not specially qualified or trained in the use of fireworks.

12508. "Exempt fireworks" means any special item containing pyrotechnic compositions which the State Fire Marshal, with the advice of the State Fire Advisory Board, has investigated and determined to be limited to industrial, commercial, agricultural use, or religious ceremonies when authorized by a permit granted by the authority having jurisdiction.

12529. "Safe and sane fireworks" means any fireworks which do not come within the definition of "dangerous fireworks" or "exempt fireworks."

Are Fireworks headed down the same path as Cigarettes?

I have often said, half joking, that Lakewood civic clubs could raise money by selling cigarettes. I get looks like I just said they should sell crack cocaine for team uniforms. But before you laugh, think about how selling fireworks really is not much different than selling cigarettes.


Both cigarettes and fireworks are costly and lucrative for sellers due to their “contraband” like appeal. Both cigarettes and fireworks must be sold by adults to adults and the sales are regulated by federal state and local laws. But does that make either safer for the user or bystanders? No.

Look at the marketing campaigns of cigarettes and fireworks. When you think of cigarettes what do you think of first? Car racing sponsorship and other selected athletic endeavors. The tobacco companies pour millions into NASCAR. And everyone loves NASCAR right? So how could that tobacco money be a bad thing? When you tell Nascar fans of smoking bans how do you think they feel? How will they ever replace tobacco funding? Yes tobacco is bad they say but we are addicted to the money.

Sound familiar? It should as it is the same approach being used by the fireworks companies. They have convinced all the civic clubs that they will never be able to replace fireworks as a fund raising device. And out of either laziness or lack for ingenuity the clubs have bought into this argument and are now doing the firework companies bidding. The entire argument that the clubs have put forth in this election is the money and safety takes a back seat. The fireworks safety is addressed elsewhere on this site. As far as the money is concerned, most of it is going to the fireworks distributor, who has very low overhead. They have them manufactured for pennies on the dollar in China and the entire distribution network is the local clubs. No employees. No pensions. No health benefits. No unions. No minimum wage.

Over the past 20 years a long campaign has been waged against tobacco use and the tobacco companies for misleading consumers that cigarettes were safe. Over the years this campaign has paid off. Smoking and its related costs have been reduced. Non smokers are especially happy in California as smoking has been eliminated in almost all areas. People under 30 cannot even imagine having to sit near smokers all day in an office anymore. California has led the way on these bans and now the rest of the country and the world is following.

Just like with cigarettes, California needs to lead the way on banning fireworks as well, one city at a time. The vast majority of California cities and counties ban the use of all fireworks.

In addition to banning cigarettes (or all fireworks) outright, California and other states over the past few years have dramatically increased the taxes on cigarettes and has used this money for educational campaigns and to subsidize health costs. Proposition 86 also on the ballot this November seeks to increase those taxes even more, up to $2.50 a pack to fund healthcare. Why not do the same for fireworks? I see no effort by the fireworks companies or the clubs benefiting from a portion of the sales offering to assist the non firework using taxpayers with the increased cost of law enforcement on July 4th the or the cost of fires, injuries, pollution and educational efforts.

So the choice is clear. Either ban fireworks or make them pay their fair share trough city taxes and fees. No more free lunch for fireworks peddlers. Cigarettes pay their share of their burden. Time for fireworks to do the same.

Vote YES on Measure “D”

Seeing through the smoke: How safe are “safe and sane” fireworks?

One thing that the Safe and Sane fireworks industry likes to tout is its safety record.

Using statistics from the Consumer Product safety Commission, the National Research Council, the National Fire Protection Association and the American Pyrotechnics Association (“APA” the lobbying group for the fireworks distributors):

In 1997 there were almost 660,000 fires in the US. (this does not appear to include forest fires). Of the total fires, the industry claims that only .1% were caused by fireworks whereas 3.3% of the total dollars lost were from fires caused by cigarettes. As for total fires caused it was .3% for fireworks and 3.4% for cigarettes. This may mean that the cigarette fires may have been to more expensive property. But the main point that the APA does not point out is a very obvious one: Fireworks are overwhelmingly used only for a few days during July 4. Cigarettes on the other hand are used 365 days a year by many more people than fireworks. What would the figure be if all smokers used fireworks all year? Likely much higher than cigarette caused fires just due to the fact that fireworks burn hotter and spray sparks unlike cigarettes, which are quite tame by comparison. The dollar total for just fire damage in 1997 from fireworks was nearly 5.5 million dollars (over 2,500 fires).

Now we move on to safety and personal injuries. Ask any fireman, doctor or policeman (whose clubs are not making money selling fireworks ) if they feel they are safer than not using any fireworks the answer will be no. Most agree that they should be banned just due to the sheer nuisance calls they generate.

The comparison to smoking continues on personal injuries. (see our related article on the similarities of smoking and fireworks). From 1994 through 2004 fireworks injuries have stayed from 12,500 to 9,600 per year. Eight people died in 2004 from fireworks injuries. Of the injuries, about three times as many males were injured as females. Children under 15 accounted for 40% of all the estimated fireworks-related injuries and 10% of the injuries involved sparklers, surely seen as the tamest form of safe and sane fireworks. Using APA figures again there were 11,000 injuries due to fireworks in 2000 and 14,700 due to cigarettes AND lighters. Once again as with property damage figures the fireworks manufactures fail to point out that all the fireworks injuries are occurring in the space of a few days as opposed to all year long for other consumer products. Also there are a lot more people using cigarettes than fireworks. So it might be fair to compare Christmas Tree fires/injuries with Fireworks fires. But those figures are not supplied by the APA.

On commercial aircraft you used to be able to smoke. It was banned due to health reasons, but is still allowed in some countries. Also you can still take matches and cigarettes on aircraft. Not so with safe and sane fireworks either before or after 9/11 in either carry on or checked baggage. In fact after 9/11 you can still check loaded firearms!

What about schools? They promote the sale and use of fireworks yet do not allow students to carry them on campus at all. Why? They are not safe.

Also we are ignoring pet safety. If fireworks make pets run away from home into the streets are they still pet safe? And what about air pollution? Do fireworks get a free pass on air pollution? Have you seen the haze and smelled the sulfur in the air on the 4^th? Where do you think all that pollution goes? How many trips to work does all the pollution equal? What about the run off of the spent fireworks residue people wash into the gutter and then into the local oceans? Fireworks contain deadly perchlorates that are already banned and being looked at even closer due to groundwater contamination.

So are safe and sane fireworks safe? Well that depends on what you compare them to and whose safety your are looking at. Yes they are “safer” than illegal fireworks but it also depends on how legal fireworks are used. Many are used by children without adult supervision. Many are used by people that are intoxicated. Many are thrown or modified in some way so as to drastically increase their danger. Safe and Sane fireworks are not safer than a total ban on fireworks. The title “safe and sane” was likely coined by a fireworks lobbyist and slipped into the law in California. The term generally means fireworks that do not shoot up into the air or explode. That still leaves a lot of room for injury.

Vote YES on Measure "D"

letter to the Editor of Lakewood Community News

This is a letter to the Editor of Lakewood Community News sent in response to John Kelly’s letter published in the October 2006 edition:

First let me point out that John Kelly is Vice President of Alabama based TNT Fireworks and apparently acts as a quasi lobbyist for TNT. In the last few years he has fought against proposed fireworks bans in Downey, Palmdale, Chino, Lawndale, Garden Grove, and Fontana, to name a few. The point being that those and other cities and their residents want to ban fireworks, like Lakewood, but the small number of pro-fireworks people who get “fireworks money” are better organized in their opposition due to their financial interests. At least in Lakewood the issue has made it on the ballot. Kelly and TNT also have a financial interest in the outcome of this election and he and/or his company (which has an unknown number of employees) stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if fireworks are banned from Lakewood. He is counting on the so called Lakewood non- profit groups (fireworks sellers) to secure his retirement. So clearly he is not offering an objective viewpoint. Money tends to cloud the judgment of people, especially politicians. The Lakewood Accountability Action Group on the other hand has no financial interest in this election or fireworks, nor does it receive any financial support from any business or office holder. Kelly is not a Lakewood resident.

There is no question that the growth of illegal firework use has been greatest in cities which allow safe and sane fireworks. Why? Onelikely reason is that people are just not getting enough “bang for the buck” and so move up to illegal fireworks use from safe and sane. Or, as typical in most other male dominated activities, one neighbor has to outdo the other in an escalating war of illegal fireworks. The other problem is that this illegal use tends to spread across the boarders of neighboring cities that do not allow any fireworks use like Cerritos and Long Beach. Eliminating them in Lakewood would assist those cities’ enforcement efforts as well. Long Beach supports Lakewood banning fireworks altogether.

Ironically the illegal fireworks use in Lakewood cuts into the profits of TNT yet they have not offered to help the city with increased law enforcement which in effect boosts the sales of their legal product. Nor have any of the clubs benefiting from the July 2006 $100,000 increase in law enforcement costs come forward with any of their fireworks profits to lessen their burden on other taxpayers already suffering from the other negative effects.

John Kelly’s assertion that legal fireworks do not fly up in the air or explode assumes of course that users follow the law and don’t modify them or throw them, yet in the same letter he acknowledges that there are certain people intent on breaking the law. True, but that does not mean we should make it easier for people to break the law.

As far as legal fireworks masking illegal use, anyone that has driven around Lakewood during the 4^th knows that with all the smoke, flashes, sparks and other commotion that legal fireworks make it is easy for law enforcement to miss illegal use. It can also result in more erroneous law enforcement calls by neighbors confused as to where the illegal use is occurring. In addition some users of illegal fireworks also use legal fireworks to act as a decoy for illegal use.

For more information visit the LAAG website and then vote yes on Measure “D”.