Poll of the week: Local issue arising from Russellville
It's been a while since I posted a poll -- I may have to rename this the "poll of the month." We're just going through a slow period with few heated issues.
Two candidates for House District 68 in Russellville have generated some discussion of banning novelty lighters after two young children in that town died in a fire started as the two boys played with a motorcycle-shaped lighter (see 9/30 article by Rob Moritz).
District 68 Republican candidate Andrea Lea advocates a ban. Democrat Thomas Akin believes a statewide ban should be studied. What do you think? Unnecessary intrusion by the government or an appropriate measure? I'm inclined to put the responsibility on parents, but I want to hear your thoughts.
Previous polls:
Poll No. 4: 2007 Razorbacks
Poll No. 3: Governor Beebe's job performance
Poll No. 2: The severance tax
Poll No. 1: Flavored cigarettes
Two candidates for House District 68 in Russellville have generated some discussion of banning novelty lighters after two young children in that town died in a fire started as the two boys played with a motorcycle-shaped lighter (see 9/30 article by Rob Moritz).
District 68 Republican candidate Andrea Lea advocates a ban. Democrat Thomas Akin believes a statewide ban should be studied. What do you think? Unnecessary intrusion by the government or an appropriate measure? I'm inclined to put the responsibility on parents, but I want to hear your thoughts.
Previous polls:
Poll No. 4: 2007 Razorbacks
Poll No. 3: Governor Beebe's job performance
Poll No. 2: The severance tax
Poll No. 1: Flavored cigarettes
posted by Steve Harrelson @ 10/04/2007 11:35:00 AM | Permalink |
4 Comments:
Ban them, for God sakes let Arkansas be the first for once for something good. That NLR Fire Chief should be given a reward for being so smart...please support this..have you seen these...some parents may not even know what they are..they do not look like lighters!!!
Novelty lighters are an interesting issue because there is immediate and dramatic evidence locally that they can fall into the wrong hands. Should we ban the lighters? Or should we regulate the lighters’ sale and use? Simple prohibition is an easy response to all manner of public health risks but not always effective or appropriate.
One way to make public health decisions is to count bodies. Novelty lighters killed 2 children in Arkansas this year. In 2007 tobacco killed nearly 4,900 people. 90% of them became addicted to nicotine as children. Do we want to ban tobacco? Of course not, but given the health risk and cost to public health, regulating the sale and use is an appropriate if not understated reaction to the leading cause of preventable death.
Novelty lighters are a convenient media event for ignoring effective challenges to the public health. Unfortunately the novelty lighter lobby hasn’t the political clout that the tobacco cartel has.
If enough people were as educated and motivated about the risk of smoking 100 years ago, we could have banned tobacco then--but someone probably argued that it would take our attention away from polio.
Novelty lighters are an emerging problem. We can wait until more young bodies stack up or we can say, wait a minute, this seems dangerous and there appears to be no upside. Let's get the vaccine (ban) and move on to tougher problems.
The only arguments I've heard against the ban are slippery slope to banning guns and taking attention away from your one-issue. That's because there is no reasonable argument to have lighters that look like toys.
This issue should take little if any political capital (you said it) and, if you were savvy, you would take the opportunity to make friends with these politically active firefighters who are working toward the same thing you are--reducing the negative effects of smoking on our state.
Tobacco-free folks would get further if they . . . well, present yourself like you really care more about the people than you do about the cause. I'm with you but, come on, act human.
Oh, on the "leave it to parents" argument. Government needs to stay out of our homes and let parents be parents, right? I agree. However, it is government's role to create a reasonably decent environment in which to be a parent.
Government doesn't leave business to companies--let them figure out how to make it here. It offers incentives (tax breaks for example) to create a good environment in which to have a business. The least we can do is provide the same consideration to families as we do to HP.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home