More bang for fireworks
Published: Friday, July 5, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Hasn't the time come for Pennsylvania to step into the 21st century and follow the lead of other states to make the full line of consumer fireworks legal for sale and use in the state? Today, 46 states permit the sale and use of some level of consumer fireworks, with Kentucky, Maine and Michigan having all gone to full-line consumer fireworks within the past two years.
Those states have recognized two factors related to consumer fireworks: First and foremost, the products are safer today than they have ever been before. And secondly, the sale of consumer fireworks can raise some badly needed revenue for the government.
Pennsylvania legislators have the power to change the fireworks laws and take Pennsylvanians out of the shadows of uncertainty and illegality and bring Pennsylvania to parity with so many other states that permit the sale and use of the full line of consumer fireworks. This is long overdue.
Since 1994, when the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory first began testing consumer fireworks at the factory level in China for compliance with U.S. manufacturing and performance standards — and while imports of fireworks have doubled from 117 million pounds in 1994 to 234.1 million pounds in 2011 — the number of fireworks-related injuries as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has dropped over 23 percent from 12,500 to 9,600.
Write or email your legislator and ask for legalization of the full line of consumer fireworks in Pennsylvania.
William A. Weimer
The writer is vice president of Phantom Fireworks.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ACA deserves support
- Harming, not improving
- Hunt where the deer are
- About time for Gilpin
- Handled it well
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- ACA ramifications I
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Prevailing wage downsides II