So why are Fireworks so restricted in Oregon? Anyone know the history?
Posted on July 3, 2009 - 04:34 PM
#
feedback.pdxradio.com
Portland radio, the world & beyond
feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things
paranoid About Fireworks?
(51 posts)-
-
Oregon has some, for lack of a better word, puritanical tendencies. And so many of them fly in the face of not only what seems to be progressive, but oddly hypocritical. Oregon can be very strange that way.
But to answer your question, Phil - No. I do not know the history behind the fireworks things.
Posted on July 3, 2009 - 07:29 PM # -
Phil - I would venture that many, if not most, communities/states are outlawing fireworks altogether. When I was a kid in Spokane, we were allowed to have a lot of the good stuff, and they were pretty hands-off on the illegal stuff. 25 years later now, and if you set off a sparkler in Spokane and get caught, you're arrested. More and more communities are reverting to such measures.
Be glad Oregon has fireworks whatsoever!
Posted on July 3, 2009 - 09:23 PM # -
I don't mind Oregon being conservative on fireworks. As it stands right now, it's a good balance. If you really want to set some good stuff off, it's not all that hard to go and find a safe place and do it.
Big ass fireworks in the city are dangerous because people just don't get it.
And if you are after the big *BOOM!*, simple physics will get you there in a pinch, and that's what we do every year.
Posted on July 3, 2009 - 11:49 PM # -
"More and more communities are reverting to such measures."
It boils down to one word; Revenue.
The majority of cities and counties pass laws and ordinances to bolster their revenue. It's all about "How much money can we extract from the citizens"
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 12:12 AM # -
skybill sez: "The majority of cities and counties pass laws and ordinances to bolster their revenue."
The majority? Can you prove this?
Can you also prove BANNING fireworks increases revenue as you're claiming?
I think you've got it wrong and its likely the other way around. It's the high cost to society of continuing to allow people to maim, injure, kill, destroy themselves, other people and/or property. Enforcement, fire fighting, medical treatment and transport, disability and lack of insurance likely cost society more than any revenue generated through the sale of fireworks.
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 12:36 AM # -
Banning fireworks has more to do with public safety than anything else. How often do we hear about some kid blowing his or her fingers off lighting fireworks – or a house fire as a result of improperly disposed of spent fireworks – or a grass fire? Nearly every 4th of July. As much as I know kids love them (and some adults too), these things can be extremely dangerous and do maximum damage.
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 04:46 AM # -
"It boils down to one word; Revenue."
Not really - the sales taxes garnered from selling fireworks (in states that have sales tax) I would guess outweigh the costs incurred to pay the fire and police to answer 17636192 calls every Fourth of July to treat some drunken maroon who has set their neighbor's house on fire, or to treat burns, or anything else.
It's about safety, not revenue.
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 08:29 AM # -
Oregon's laws on fireworks are lame! I think we should do like the Indian reservations. If it doesn't fly in the air or explode, why bother? I feel sorry for kids these days.
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 10:51 AM # -
If it was just safety, wouldn't someone be saying, "It's not safe to ride bicycles in heavy traffic, especially the kids." Uh, no, I doubt that is gonna happen in Portland!
I'm just remembering how much fun fireworks have been on the 4th of July, how my friends in other states talk about how they're gonna shoot fireworks out by the backyard grill tonight.
Interesting!
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 10:54 AM # -
They pass laws and ordinances so they can write tickets.
Tickets = Revenue.
They could give a rats patootie about yours (and mine) safety.
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 11:18 AM # -
“They pass laws and ordinances so they can write tickets”.
I fail to see how passing an ordinance banning the use of certain fireworks is purely designed to enhance a jurisdictions revenue stream. When you factor all the costs that go into managing for the 4th (including enhanced fire and police patrols), not to mention responding to accidents or fires caused by fireworks, it would probably come out as a net loss for a jurisdiction and/or municipality.
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 11:41 AM # -
skybill sez: "They could give a rats patootie about yours (and mine) safety."
How about posting some evidence here for a change? It appears that you are just making stuff up. Am I wrong?
Posted on July 4, 2009 - 10:03 PM # -
This from News Channel 7:
--------------------Piedmont Boy Loses Hand, Possibly Legs After Fireworks Accident--------------------
Published: July 3, 2009
Fifteen year old Ryan Stancell has lost his hand and most likely have to have both legs amputated after a fireworks accident Thursday night.
He is currently at Greenville Memorial with sever burns on his chest and will need skin graphs according to his mother. She said they do think he will survive.
Neighbor Perry Oakley said he felt the shock inside his house when the explosive went off, and ran to help.“I was completely shocked out,“ said Oakley. “There was a nurse at the end of the road and if it wasn’t for her, I don’t know what the kid would have done. She got us to take our belts off and create tourniquets for him.“
Oakley said even more shocking, the explosion was caused by sparklers.
“It was a sparkler. Those are $.25 a box and most people would never think that would cause the damage that it was capable of,“ said Oakley.
The Anderson County Sheriff’s Office said there were possibly more than 100 sparklers gathered together, creating what’s called a sparkler bomb. It creates tremendous explosive power, according to the Anderson County Fire Chief.
“Anytime you alter a firework and use it for anything it’s not supposed to be used for, it’s a recipe for disaster.“
The fire chief says the investigation is still open and charges could be filed, because it is against the law to alter an explosive device. He says the boy was with a 21 year old at the time.
Reader ReactionsPosted on July 4, 2009 - 11:01 PM # -
This is a tragic story.
But aside from that a couple of things strike me about this story from a news reporting standpoint:1. "sever burns"?
2. "Skin grafs"?Posted on July 5, 2009 - 06:51 AM # -
Thanks to the Internet, I was able to find strong reasons for Oregon to ban bicycle riding, for the safety of the kids, of course!
* 660 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2002. This is 9 percent fewer than in 2001 and down 34 percent since 1975. Bicycle deaths are most likely to occur in summer. Deaths are most likely to occur on Fridays and Saturdays. The peak time is 3-9 pm.
* Ninety-eight percent of bicyclists killed in 1999 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.
* Deaths of older bicyclists are an increasing problem. Seventy-one percent of 1999 bicycle deaths were riders 16 years and older. This compares with 32 percent of bicycle deaths in 1975.
* Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) accounted for 43 percent of bicycle deaths in 1999.
* More bicyclists were killed in urban areas than in rural areas (64 percent compared with 36 percent) in 1999.
* Thirty-five percent of bicycle deaths in 1999 occurred at intersections.
* Fifty-seven percent of bicycle deaths in 1999 occurred on major roads, and 37 percent occurred on local roads.
* Fifty-nine percent of bicycle deaths among children younger than 13 and 27 percent of adult bicycle deaths occur on minor roads. Adult bicyclists are more likely than children to be killed on major roads (67 percent compared with 38 percent).Ha Ha just kidding! Lets ban some stuff!
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 08:07 AM # -
From komonews.com:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/49976192.html
This is exactly why states and municipalities have taken a much harder line on fireworks. As fun as fireworks are to watch, they can be extremely dangerous. A million dollars worth of damage is certainly not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. And consider too the risks involved in fighting such a fire -- all because of 4th of July fireworks.
From kirotv.com:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/19954964/detail.html
This fire too was caused by fireworks -- breaking out in Seattle's U District.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 09:08 AM # -
Although the story of that teenager blowing his hand off is tragic, and I feel bad for his parents, I think that the fact that he used the sparklers in a reckless manner shouldn't be ignored.
Yesterday, in a celebration of things reckless and dangerous, I rode my old ten-speed up to Rocky Butte to meet up with a group and watch the fireworks. Despite the Fort Vancouver show being canceled, there were a lot of respectable-sized fireworks being set off on the Washington side. Later in the evening--about 10:30 or so--a bunch of were set off near the river. It looked like a line of fireworks going up, with the coordination of their firing being a product of serendipity. I also spotted a few big fireworks being set off from the Gresham area.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 12:14 PM # -
Alfredo, EXACTLY.
However the crowd that believes "We need the Government to protect us from everything" won't see it that way.
To them it is the sparklers fault, maybe even the folks that made sparklers and definitely the people that sold the sparklers.
I feel sorry for the kid's parents as they will most likely be stuck with caring for him until he recovers and adjusts enough to take care of himself.
This fall under the "Stupidity Should Be Painful" category.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 07:06 PM # -
I was getting nervous that Craig might let us down this year on his annual posting of mid-summer holiday stupidity, mishaps and amputations, but was relieved to find the first entry at post #14. Praise Gourd!
That also means it's officially time for Craig's beloved Christmas Crap to hit the shelves and Parade "magazine". I already got my Hallmark ornament catalog, right after Flag Day. Tossed.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 09:06 PM # -
P.S. Good Job, Alfredo...that's a hard ride on a GOOD bike. At least on the "up" part.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 09:08 PM # -
I was having trouble finding a current fireworks maiming story. Had looked for days but finally stupidly reared its head.
I always wait until the end of the 4th of July weekend before starting my celebration of Christmas In July.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 09:29 PM # -
skybill, since you ignored the question posed to you, then I'll have to assume you made that comment without any supporting evidence.
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 10:32 PM # -
Skeptical, there is no "hard" evidence, just my observations.
I'll restate it for you; My observation is that cities and counties pass most laws and ordinances to generate revenue.
Better?
Posted on July 5, 2009 - 11:42 PM # -
This from The Seattle P.I. - July 6, 2009:
------------------------------2 Boys Hurt In Clark County Fireworks Explosion------------------------------
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
VANCOUVER, Wash. -- Clark County authorities say a fireworks explosion sent two boys to the hospital late Sunday.
Sheriff's Sgt. Shane Gardner says a 7-year-old boy went by ambulance to Southwest Washington Medical Center because of multiple shrapnel injuries, including one near his jugular vein. A 13-year-old boy was taken to the same hospital by his parents.
Gardner says a group of boys placed two dozen sparklers in a long-neck glass bottle. One sparkler protruded from the top of the bottle.
The bottle exploded after the single sparkler was lit, sending shards of glass flying on a residential street near Pacific Middle School.
The case has been referred to the Clark County Prosecutor's Office.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_fireworks_injuries.html?source=mypi
Posted on July 6, 2009 - 05:27 PM # -
Yep. Stupidity rules.
Posted on July 6, 2009 - 06:01 PM # -
"My observation is that cities and counties pass most laws and ordinances to generate revenue."
Would you say your "observations" are factual enough that someone reading this thread could repeat your comment elsewhere without getting throughly debunked by other "observers" armed with irrefutable facts?
Posted on July 6, 2009 - 09:19 PM # -
They are my observations. That's all.
What others do with them is beyond my control.
Posted on July 6, 2009 - 09:37 PM # -
Ok, I'll have to move them to the flush category.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 12:51 AM # -
"I'll restate it for you; My observation is that cities and counties pass most laws and ordinances to generate revenue."
Are you a city councilman? How could you have possibly 'observed' the motivation behind laws and ordinances?
Not to say that I disagree with your conclusion, but at least admit it's pure speculation on your (our) part!
Re: fireworks - I think an argument could be made that increasing availability of legal fireworks that are actually fun (instead of sparklers, snakes and fountains like we have here) would make kids less likely to unsafely modify the 'safe' fireworks in an attempt to make them fun, as seen in the 'sparkler bomb' examples above. If the kids had just been able to buy some M80s, they probably wouldn't have made the sparkler bomb and been injured.
In other words, this is the law of unintended consequences at work.
I'd like to see a comparision of fireworks injury rates between Portland and Vancouver - theoretically the Vancouverites should be more maimed due to the increased availability of 'unsafe' fireworks.
Of course (in my experience) 'illegal' fireworks (even the stuff you have to go to the Rez to get) are extremely common here, probably more common than the legal crap. And I can't say I've ever seen even the mildest attempt at enforcing the laws against posessing/using banned works. In fact we spent the 4th at our neighborhood park, approximately 1 block from a community policing station, which was packed with illegal fireworks... with no sign of the cops.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 12:17 PM # -
"If the kids had just been able to buy some M80s,"
I'm assuming you really don't mean that. If you do, I suggest you read the following:
Due to property damages and bodily harm caused by M-80s, Class C fireworks—now known as Consumer Fireworks (class 1.4G), as opposed to Display Fireworks (which were Class B, and are now 1.3G)[4]— civilians are no longer allowed to carry more than 50 milligrams of pyrotechnic flash powder. In 1966, M-80s and cherry bombs were banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Child Protection Act of 1966. Furthermore, they were then made illegal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in the 1970s. In 1975, U.S. federal regulations were passed to limit all consumer-grade fireworks in the United States to a maximum of 50 milligrams flash powder, down from a previous maximum of 200 milligrams (though firecrackers mounted onto a rocket stick, or other aerial firework devices, such as Rockets, Roman Candles, and Cakes, may have up to 160 mg).
Numerous injuries accompanied their use during the 1950s and 1960s, and still occur, as M-80s are still produced and sold primarily on Indian reservations.[citation needed] Despite instructions to only ignite the product on the ground (many M-80s even have the words "do not hold in hand" written on the tube[1]), many users attempt to light an M-80 while holding it, then throw it before it explodes. Others attempt to relight a device that went out. Due to their illicit nature, M-80s may also contain unstable compositions, which add to the possibility of injury. There have been documented cases of users losing their fingers or hands[5]. Peter Criss, drummer for the rock band Kiss, was a victim of an M-80 during a 1976 Richmond Coliseum concert when a fan threw an M-80 onto the stage, nearly knocking him off his drum riser and leaving him with partial hearing loss for the remainder of the night.[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-80_(explosive)
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 12:26 PM # -
Well I was exaggerating slightly with the M80 commment, however, your link supports my point in the "due to their illicit nature..." section. Legal fireworks (and recreational drugs, among most anything else) are inherently safer than otherwise-identical illegal ones... and clearly, making them illegal hasn't made them all that difficult to get.
I personally have purchased M80s from the reservation(approximately 30 years after they were banned, apparently) after going through a prefunctory "you ain't a fed, are ya?" inspection. Of course I'm not stupid enough to light one in my hand, and one might suggest that if you are stupid enough to do so, you deserve what you get. Further, a legal, regulated M80 would be much more likely to have a safe, properly timed fuse that wouldn't blow your damn hand off if you chose to stupidly light-and-throw.
Just sayin'...
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 02:49 PM # -
I would support kids using M-80's, if they can handle them. I did and never had a problem.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 05:38 PM # -
Be careful what you wish for. Many people will tell you that they used to play with M-80’s and cherry bombs when they were young. If they still have all of their fingers, they were lucky. You can handle numerous illegal fireworks and not get injured by one going off accidentally. The problem is that if one does go off accidentally, you probably will not get a second chance to make another mistake. The law of averages can strike the first time that you pick up an M-80 or it can strike on the 731st time that you pick one up. The one thing that you can be sure of is that eventually one of them will go off accidentally. Assuming they were legal, kids would not know the difference between a "legal" M-80 and a black market device. There’s a black market of bootleg M-80s hastily made from paper tubes, hot glue and explosive powder. “Thump junkies” besotted by big bangs risk life, limb and a federal prison sentence of up to 10 years to play with the devices. Some post the results on YouTube, boasting about blowing up a vast array of objects such as a guitar, a gingerbread house, some metal chain and 30 empty cans of Bud Light. Home made fireworks and explosives are very unstable. There is no set formula for the explosive that is used in illegal fireworks. Some of the fireworks that are made in Mexico are so unstable and dangerous that they are shipped wet to prevent them from exploding prematurely. The explosive filler can be set off by friction, heat, impact, sparks or flame. If you have a bag full of illegal fireworks and one of them goes off accidentally, you can assume that all of the fireworks in the bag will go off at the same time. A small amount of fireworks going off at the same time in a vehicle can kill everyone who is in that vehicle and scatter parts of the car in all directions.
Didn't a firefighter get killed about 5 years ago when a barge full of fireworks went off on its own during the Ft. Vancouver display?
Vitalogy, for a smart kid you have a lot of arrogance. Didn't you just have an offspring? Better rethink this one.
(BTW, since they became illegal in 1966 it's probable what you played with were black market. You're one of the lucky ones.)Posted on July 7, 2009 - 06:23 PM # -
I agree with Vitalogy completely. It's not arrogance either.
This is an issue with me that runs deep. There are simply dangerous things in this world. That's the yin. The yang is there is also education and now, more than ever, ready availability of the information people need to deal with the danger in the world.
Well educated people don't do as much stupid shit. And when they do actually do stupid shit, they've got a better than average shot at coming out of it ok.
Well sheltered people also don't do as much stupid shit. However, when they do choose to do it, they have a higher than average chance of completely hosing it, themselves and others up, due to profound ignorance about the world.
I've seen this in action my entire life, and have seen nothing that suggests we need to increase the amount of sheltering we do. In fact, I think we do just a bit too much. I've been chastized for letting my kids "free range", but I've not been chastized for those times when I saw them with their friends saying, "you fool! Don't you know about that?".
Everybody seems to forget the latter and focus on the former, and that's a mistake.
Being a "free range" kid growing up has one really powerful advantage over being a sheltered kid; namely, you live with the consequences of your actions. That's a powerful motivator to go get after it and understand things before you do them.
Don't get me wrong. Everybody lives with the result of their actions. However, the "free rangers" have the set expectation that there are consequences and that they are expected to know something about them, if they expect to live a long and full life.
The sheltered kids don't have that same expectation --or I don't see it to the same degree I do otherwise. That's a problem just waiting to happen --and it does during their rebellion stage, often with the worst of results.
Finally, it is completely and totally offensive to me that we would hobble the world, just so those of us that don't get it where basic expectations are concerned are not forced to deal with reality.
For every kid that gets something blown off, or seriously hurt, there is a parent somewhere that quite likely didn't set those expectations, and failed to empower the kid to do the work to grok the world. Nobody I grew up with would have shoved a ton of sparklers into a jar, hoping for something good to happen.
We simply would have paid up fair and square for the good stuff, then enjoy it with a healthy measure of respect for what it is.
And people wonder why we have such a problem with drugs and sex. This all works the same way. Set the expectation that the world is scary and filled with things to be avoided rather than understood and you will see it filled with people that don't get it, doing harm to themselves and others as simple, human curiosity trumps all.
When people want to do stuff, for the most part they will. So then, should they do it blind and inhibited, or should they do it with both eyes wide open?
I can sleep at night knowing the latter happened. I have trouble with the former, wondering if they just had the chance to understand some things, if they wouldn't be better off, just like I and many of my peers were.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 06:50 PM # -
So I guess it's OK for kids to shoot heroin, as long as they can "handle" it?
Or drink a fifth of Jack, as long as they can "handle" it?
Or snort a few lines of coke, as long as they can "handle" it?
Or take Dad's rifle out of the gun locker and fire it off in the back yard at some birds when he's breaking all the rules he's been told, as long as they can "handle" it.No. You guys are both wrong on this one. M-80's are explosives. I've set them off, and I was a kid. I was smart enough and lucky enough to take precaution, but making them legal is STUPID. And yes it is arrogance, as in "an exaggerated sense of one's own abilities." If you passed that gene on to your kids, what makes you so sure they'll ponder the experience and go, "No sweat, I can handle it." It won't buy them a new hand.
I mean why do you think they are illegal in all 50 states when their sale would generate so much money changing hands, where this country moral base sits right there? I think its called the preponderance of evidence shows them to be too dangerous for anyone, let alone kids, to possess or discharge.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 07:12 PM # -
No on the heroin. It is completely ok to fully educate them about it however. Ideally, let them meet somebody who has struggled with it, wasting a lot of their life. One eye to eye conversation like that takes care of it.
That is exactly what I did with my kids. They won't go near the stuff.
Yes on the fifth, but not the whole bottle. If kids are going to get drunk, then they are going to get drunk. Much better to do that under adult supervision so the education about how booze works and why can happen in a way they won't forget, without really putting them in harms way. Tip: If they want to try and drink, make sure they drink enough to pay for it the next morning, and be there making noise and making them work so they get the full experience.
No on the coke. See above.
Yes on the rifle. Again, this needs to be done with a parent around making sure the education happens. I owned and used powerful weapons before I was 16, and fully and completely understood how they were to be used and why that was the case. Many of my peers were the same way. Just taking the gun outta the cabinet for a romp in the woods with it is stupid, and anybody I grew up with would tell the kid, busted for that, they got exactly what they deserved for being a complete douche-bag dumb ass.
And we can go on and on about this. I grew up around people who understood what parenting is about. If the expectation is that you can do stuff, if you are ready for it, and that people are there to help you get ready for it, and you trust their call, or suffer very serious consequences, what will happen is those kids will get a lot of good, valuable experiences, without a lot of risk. Those kids will also understand they can go ask people stuff and get real answers.
Where people are sheltered and taught under the expectation of fear, ignorance and inhibition, they don't have that base of people educating them and empowering them, and they don't have those people to talk to about things --BEFORE THEY DO THEM.
Here's the noodler: Let's say the stuff is illegal. Why then do most of the kids in my neighborhood have it anyway?
Worse, who are they going to talk to about dealing with the stuff, if it's illegal?
Here where I live, little kids were dealing in these things for a few bucks a pop. When faced with something like that, I know absolutely that my own kids are then at risk, unless I take the opportunity to educate them otherwise. To actually do that as a parent, I then must commit a crime and that does not sit well with me.
That's the dilemma surrounding these things. Drugs work the same way.
Right now, any 12 year old can take 10 bucks, make a few phone calls and get high one hour later. Think they won't do it? Of course they will.
So then, as the parent, given this, what to do? Same for booze, sex, and lots of other things.
Then let's consider what our young people are watching today. There are good shows, like "Myth Busters" that set good expectations. But, there are a lot more shows like "Jackass" that don't set the right expectations. Worse, what do you think they think when they KNOW we did it?
Yeah. Exactly.
So then, I'm about managing those expectations, educating where I can, helping when I can and being there when I can. Sheltering builds barriers that inhibit those things and that increases risk as an almost direct function of ignorance.
Sorry man. I know how I grew up and I know the value of it. Sure, I was a smart kid. No question. But here's the thing: Even the rather dumb kids had better expectations surrounding this stuff than we often see today. If anything, their smarter friends can be there to say, "WTF you fool?".
The kids that were sheltered to a high degree got into a whole lot of trouble as young adults. Way more than anybody who had some real world experiences did.
Arguably, part of my ability to deal with the world today has more to do with the influences and time spent learning about it and getting the right expectations set as much as it did simple genetics. Norms are a powerful thing. They act at a level beneath reason most of the time. When people grow under good, solid norms, their natural tendencies lean toward those things that get them through more often than not.
How can those norms be set, if we hide things? How will young people know the difference between something that really only needs to be discussed (coke, for example) -vs- those things that can be experienced? (booze) And what's worse is when they don't buy it, even though the adult is making the correct judgment. What happens? They try it for themselves, that's what.
I don't want to be a criminal in order to actually parent kids. That means facing the music where useless prohibition is concerned.
Prohibition is useless when those that want to do things, simply can with little effort. Firecrackers are there, as is booze, sex, pot, and other things.
Where that's true, I prefer to deal with reality straight up, front and center, not hide behind a lot of shit. That is how I was treated as a young person, for the most part, and the older I get the more thankful I am for those that took the time and had the strength of character to do that for me.
Edit: That means legal M80 type fireworks for adults, which also means I can do the parenting without having to commit a crime. Don't like it? Then do what it takes to actually deny access to these things so I'm not faced with that dilemma, because I absolutely will deal with it the same way those that brought me up dealt with it.
Another Edit: We've got kids shooting each other and instructors in "safe" gun clubs, and we call that ok? I hardly see the difference between permitting that and a parent buying M80 class fireworks and sharing the big boom with their kids, same as the gun people do.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 07:43 PM # -
Well, judging from what I saw and heard Sat night, there were plenty of non-sanctioned / illegal fireworks being enjoyed in Portland. We're talkin' hundreds, thousands of infractions.
So the reality is, the people of Portland still enjoy fireworks, despite the regulations.
It's kinda like muffler regulations in Portland, they just don't enforce 'em!
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 07:57 PM # -
Yep.
That is exactly the case, making the regulations useless for keeping kids safe. We've set expectations on one hand, yet fail to meet them on the other. The message the kids get is that it all really doesn't matter, when it actually does.
Another Edit: Here's an adult experience for you. Go and ask a few of them, what they think, and if it matters. Betcha you get more than a few that think it's silly, and that it doesn't matter. (that's your mixed message in play right there)
Once they have that message, then we get kids shoving a lot of sparklers into a jar, because they heard about it, and that it really doesn't matter.
FAIL
Edit: And, legal status shuts down the very dangerous and much more unpredictable black market trash too.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 08:00 PM # -
"Edit: And, legal status shuts down the very dangerous and much more unpredictable black market trash too."
Would it?
I suspect what would happen is that you'd have your legal fireworks stands selling them at $X.XX for some quantity and the black market guy selling the Chinese el cheapo version of it out of his trunk at some fraction of that.
Just my guess on what would happen.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 08:52 PM # -
Paranoid about Firework
Seems to have started a bit more basic discussions.How to teach kids.
Gov rights vs. peoples rights.
Forgot
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 09:05 PM # -
Welcome to the board Forgot!!
You will soon be addicted too!
What's the "CW" mean? CW as in Morse code on the ham bands?
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 09:11 PM # -
Well, where and when I lived with it being legal, most everybody bought the legal stuff.
Again, solid norms play out nicely. Who bought the black market stuff?
Morons and fools looking for cheap deals, that's who. The norms were basically, "why buy the unknown, black hat stuff, when the known stuff is right there?" Makes sense doesn't it? Sure it does to all but the fools, and the fools will be fools anyway, regulation or no.
More importantly, there was no significant taboo about any of it, meaning the kid dynamics I mentioned above were in play. We got "intro to big ass, like you might lose a hand fire works", complete with vivid discussion from uncle Ray. (who had a run in or two to share with us)
Like with the guns, the stuff was respected and most everybody got to see it all play out, before doing it themselves, and without having to sneak off and try shit. You do fireworks the exact same way you do guns, and the danger and unknown potential of the two are very similar.
There are not absolutes on these things, just norms --and those are largely characterized as set expectations and information that helps to balance lack of experience. Having a mentor in dangerous things helps a lot too, and where it's legal to do so, most will have that option.
Where it's not, most don't and that's my core objection to the current regulation we have on fireworks.
It's one thing, if the regulation actually worked well enough to make the stuff very difficult to obtain, but that's not the case and where the danger is for younger people here in this day and time.
There is another thing too. Some kinds of things we don't really want to share. Take the art of making poison. There is a taboo on that, and it's a good one in that anybody with the motivation to do that probably has some issues. There is a very small black market, and it serves the deviants, with the majority of us caring less.
That prohibition works.
With fireworks, there exists a significant motivation to explore them, and where there is that, we need few taboos so that we can set norms so that people have the best chance of doing the right things more often than not and that's as good as we get as people.
That's realism.
Fantasy is structuring regulation believing that it will eliminate the problem simply because the regulation exists. Remember, I've written here many, many times that solid regulation of behavior involves money, norms, physics and law. Focus on one, while ignoring the potential of the others brings poor, unbalanced solutions to problems.
I generally don't approve of that, simply because we can do better, if we consider things apart from silly taboos.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 11:06 PM # -
Welcome forgot!
We do that. Jump on in and enjoy! You won't meet finer people on the Internet than you will here.
Posted on July 7, 2009 - 11:07 PM # -
I don't think comparing M-80's to cocaine, heroin, or booze is really comparable.
And, when I was blowing up M-80's, they were legally ordered from Ohio (Black Magic, I think) but were illegal in Oregon. We just had them shipped directly to us and a few of the neighbor kids would all go in together and order a big order to get the discount. Never saw anyone get injured or a house burn down that I knew of.
I guess I grew up a free ranger too. Taking jumps on my bike, flipping over without a helmet. Riding my bike way beyond where I was supposed to go on busy roads. Climbing trees. Jumping off roofs. We were the jackass show before camcorders were availble to record it. Without the drugs and tatoos of course.
Posted on July 8, 2009 - 09:00 AM # -
Total free ranger. Me too.
Would not have had it any other way. Is there any wonder so many kids act out these days? Heck, they can't get a little healthy release!
Posted on July 8, 2009 - 09:32 AM # -
"I don't think comparing M-80's to cocaine, heroin, or booze is really comparable."
I was referring to legality and danger of abuse, so they are quite comparable. You can't buy a fifth of Jack if you're a kid, and I think you shouldn't be able to buy M-80's if you're a kid. Sure, there is always a complicit adult, but that wasn't the point. You wrote "if kids could get them" and I'm saying they shouldn't be able to, at least legally.
"Heck, they can't get a little healthy release!"
Playing with explosives is not a healthy release. Unsupervised, peer pressure situations easily lead to stupid behavior just like the sparklers in the glass bottle. Kids don't always "grok" it out right. If we're trying to evolve to a safer, less violent society, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (to get a release by blowing up stuff).
Posted on July 8, 2009 - 09:44 AM # -
I didn't mean release by playing with explosives. What I did mean was that failure to engage in a lot of activities, can result in tension --desire to move and do. Where that's the case, and there are not a lot of options, kids get bored.
That's when the trouble starts.
To be perfectly clear, I don't think sales of M80 class fireworks to kids should be permitted. I do however, have no problem with adults being able to purchase them.
Some points got co-mingled here, so time to clarify.
It's not ok for kids to just go and do dangerous stuff. It is however, also not ok to inhibit parents from mentoring their kids --educating them, guiding them, about dangerous stuff, WHEN SAID STUFF IS AVAILABLE TO THE KIDS.
Right now, today, in this town, kids CAN get these things. Where they CAN get these things, they WILL get these things. It must also be noted that where kids can go and do stuff, they WILL go and do stuff.
So, I'm opposed to making the things like this illegal, unless that regulation is effective. It's not in this case, so why bother?
The contradictory message between what is the effective norm (regulation does not matter, everybody has "good" fireworks), and the law ("good" fireworks are illegal) marginalizes the positive impact, and puts the burden on the parent to sort mixed messages out and set solid norms.
So there is that.
What I do mean by "healthy release" is having a pool of activities sufficient to challenge the kids, let them gain good experience, and generally speaking "drain" them such that their need to play, do, build, go is kept to a healthy state, not building to an unhealthy state.
This is why we have kids hunting with parents, building stuff, blowing things up (and those can be little things, controlled things), riding, cutting, programming, yelling, shooting, driving, and all sorts of other things normally associated with some level of risk.
Bottom line is this:
If we set the norm that it is ok for people to use guns, and that they are setting good norms by passing along their experience and skill to their kids who want to use guns, then it is also ok for people to use fireworks, and it is ok to set good norms by passing along their experience and skill, to those kids that want to use fireworks.
In the case of the gun, nobody just hands a kid a fire arm and lets them go. However, they do regularly see the kid has reached a state of competency where they can use the gun on their own for approved activities, after working with them to educate them and bring them that necessary skill and common sense. (hunting, shoot for skill)
I see zero difference between this managed danger and risk surrounding guns (and other dangerous things) and fireworks.
If there is a material difference, then why not then enforce the regulation and set consistent norms, eliminating this problem?
Posted on July 8, 2009 - 10:25 AM # -
There are a bit too many kids having kids in our society to expect responsible behavior with fireworks. This is a good reason for society to step in. Besides, talk about a conflicted message for kids -- playing with matches - a no-no, lighting FIRE works and EXPLOSIVES -- ok!
Posted on July 8, 2009 - 11:55 AM # -
Ok then, I support that, but only if we actually STEP IN then.
If we want to shut this stuff down, "to protect the kids", then actually do that, rather than this passive / aggressive "fireworks are really bad, see the story at 11, but nobody really is gonna tell if you want to do them anyway" crap.
Either it matters, or it doesn't.
And if it doesn't, then NOBODY should have any problem at all with those of us wanting to light off some good fireworks doing so, and educating younger people about it.
Which is it?
Posted on July 8, 2009 - 01:49 PM #
Reply »
You must log in to post.