A house fire that could have been prevented, leaves two families displaced overnight.
Wayne Township Firefighters say “careless smoking” sparked the
flames. Someone discarded a cigarette without properly putting it out.
It happened at a duplex in the 3200 block of Tansel Road in the Cleremont area, around 1:15 Saturday morning.
All four adults and four children made it out safely, alerted by
smoke detectors. Not all the families’ pets were rescued, though. Two
cats died in the fire, while two other cats and a dog escaped.
The fire began in the garage and was largely contained to that area, but firefightesr say it still did about $150,000 in damage.
Wayne Township Victims Assistance is helping the families with a place to stay.
Pike Townhsip, Speedway Fire and Brownsburg Fire all assisted in fighting the blaze.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Los Angeles city panel asks FDA to regulate e-cigarettes
In its continuing fight against e-cigarettes, a Los Angeles city
panel Friday urged the Food and Drug Administration to oversee the
product in an effort to ban its use in the same locations cigarettes are
prohibited.
The City Council’s Rules and Elections Committee urged the full council to back its proposal, saying the e-cigarettes contain ingredients harmful to the public.
The action is the latest by the council to try to regulate e-cigarettes, which have gained in popularity in recent years. Last year, the council voted to limit their sales to minors, and it is looking at extending its ban on where the devices can be used.
Councilman Mitch O’Farrell said L.A. needs to act because of the need for “controls to the many unknowns of this product.
“The city must join with the rising chorus of voices that call for sensible regulations of this product, including the Association of Attorney Generals and the American Lung Association,” O’Farrell said.
Jason Healy, president of blu eCigs, was surprised by the council action. “The FDA has already said it plans to oversee e-cigarettes, they just need to develop the regulations,” Healy said.
He questioned the council’s efforts to ban the product before they fully know its impact. “I can see where banning e-cigarettes could lead to an increase in smoking regular cigarettes,” Healy said.
“I think some of their actions could force a relapse for people who are trying to quit smoking.”
Manufacturers of the e-cigarettes have argued their product is an alternative to traditional cigarettes designed to help adult smokers looking to quit tobacco use.
Several of the companies have urged the city to do more study on the product before taking steps to ban it.
The City Council’s Rules and Elections Committee urged the full council to back its proposal, saying the e-cigarettes contain ingredients harmful to the public.
The action is the latest by the council to try to regulate e-cigarettes, which have gained in popularity in recent years. Last year, the council voted to limit their sales to minors, and it is looking at extending its ban on where the devices can be used.
Councilman Mitch O’Farrell said L.A. needs to act because of the need for “controls to the many unknowns of this product.
“The city must join with the rising chorus of voices that call for sensible regulations of this product, including the Association of Attorney Generals and the American Lung Association,” O’Farrell said.
Jason Healy, president of blu eCigs, was surprised by the council action. “The FDA has already said it plans to oversee e-cigarettes, they just need to develop the regulations,” Healy said.
He questioned the council’s efforts to ban the product before they fully know its impact. “I can see where banning e-cigarettes could lead to an increase in smoking regular cigarettes,” Healy said.
“I think some of their actions could force a relapse for people who are trying to quit smoking.”
Manufacturers of the e-cigarettes have argued their product is an alternative to traditional cigarettes designed to help adult smokers looking to quit tobacco use.
Several of the companies have urged the city to do more study on the product before taking steps to ban it.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Passive smoking causes irreversible damage to kids’ arteries
Exposure to second-hand smoke in childhood causes irreversible
damage to children's arteries—increasing their risk of heart attacks or
strokes when they grow up, according to a large international study
published on Wednesday. Parliament Reserve cigarettes
The research, which lends
weight to campaigns for smoking to be banned in private cars and homes,
found passive smoking leads to a thickening of children's artery walls,
adding some 3.3 years to the age of blood vessels by adulthood.
"Exposure to passive smoke in childhood causes direct and irreversible
damage to the structure of the arteries," said Seana Gall, a researcher
in cardiovascular epidemiology who led the study at the University of
Tasmania.
She said parents, or even those thinking
about becoming parents, should quit smoking—both to aid their own health
and protect the future health of their children.
Smoking causes lung cancer, which is often fatal, and is the world's
biggest cause of premature death from chronic conditions like heart
disease, stroke and high blood pressure.
On top of the 6
million people a year killed by their own smoking, the World Health
Organization(WHO) says another 600,000 die a year as a result of
exposure to other peoples' smoke—so-called second-hand or passive
smoking.
Of the more than 4,000 chemicals in tobacco
smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful and more than 50 are known
to cause cancer, the WHO says—and creating 100 percent smoke-free
environments is the only way to protect people fully.
About 40 percent of all children are regularly exposed to second-hand
smoke at home, and almost a third of the deaths attributable to
second-hand smoke are in children.
Artery walls
This latest study, published in the European Heart Journal, was the
first to follow children through to adulthood to look at links between
exposure to parents' smoking and thickness of the innermost two layers
of the arterial wall, known as carotid intima-media thickness (IMT).
Researchers from Finland and Australia looked at data from 2,401 people
in Finland 1,375 people in Australia who were asked about their
parents' smoking habits. The scientists used ultrasound to measure the
thickness of the children's artery walls once they had reached
adulthood.
The results showed that carotid IMT in
adulthood was 0.015 millimetres thicker in those exposed to both parents
smoking than in those whose parents did not smoke.
Gall said that while this was a "modest" increase, it was nonetheless an
important extra and irreversible risk for suffering heart attacks or
strokes later in life.
Since children of parents who
smoke are also more likely to grow up to be smokers themselves, and more
likely to be overweight, their heart health risks are often already
raised, she said, and the second-hand smoke adds yet more risk.
The researchers said the findings showed reducing children's exposure to smoke is a public health priority.
"Legislation can reduce passive smoke exposure, with restriction of
smoking in public places reducing hospitalizations for cardiovascular
and respiratory disease," they wrote, adding that banning smoking in
cars with children in them would also have a significant positive
effect.
D.C. Council OKs dropping fine for pot possession to $25
Which offense is likely to carry a bigger fine soon in Washington, D.C.?
a) Parking near a fire hydrant.
b) Possessing pot.
If you answered “a,” you are correct: Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana would be a civil infraction with a $25 fine under a plan that won easy approval from the District of Columbia City Council on Tuesday.
Backers called it one of the most lenient decriminalization laws in the nation and said the next step would be to make marijuana fully legal in the nation’s capital, as Colorado and Washington state did in 2012.
The bill passed on a 10-1 vote. Once it’s signed by Mayor Vincent Gray, Congress will have 30 working days to review the new law, which means it might not take effect until summer. Congress has the authority to overturn any laws the council passes.
Congress put D.C.’s medical marijuana plan on ice after it passed in 1998, but no one’s expecting a peep of opposition on Capitol Hill this time, another sign of the drug’s surging public acceptance, as reflected by public opinion polls.
“This is just not on their radar,” said Dan Riffle, the director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. “The story is just how much things have changed. Congress just doesn’t care because they’ve got the message this is really popular.”
D.C. council members who backed the change argued that the current penalty _ a fine of up to $1,000 and a possible six-month prison sentence for possessing any amount _ hit minorities disproportionately hard. Studies show the District of Columbia has a higher marijuana arrest rate than any state, with blacks accounting for 90 percent of the arrests.
“One drug charge can change a life forever,” said council member Tommy Wells, the bill’s chief sponsor, who called Tuesday’s decision a “historic vote.”
Critics said the measure didn’t go far enough, still allowing police to issue citations but not permitting D.C. to collect tax revenue from legal marijuana sales.
“Decriminalization is missing out on the tax base, and it’s treating the user still like a second-class citizen,” said Adam Eidinger, the chairman of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign.
He was upset that the council decided to amend the legislation to add a $500 fine and a possible 60-day jail sentence for smoking marijuana in public, keeping it a criminal offense: “If you can smoke a cigarette on the sidewalk, you should be able to smoke a joint on a sidewalk. There really is no difference.”
Things could get a little confusing, with marijuana possession on federal property remaining a federal crime, punishable by a fine of $1,000 and jail time. The federal government owns nearly 22 percent of the land in the federal capital.
“A map of D.C. will be needed, as there will a hodgepodge of laws and enforcement based on where one is standing at any given moment,” said Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Riffle said most people who violated the law on federal property were fined from $100 to $200. He’s expecting the disparity to continue.
“It’s just part of the cluster that is D.C. law,” Riffle said. “I can tell you, as a D.C. resident myself, there’s a lot of things that don’t make sense about the way D.C. is treated.”
Council member Yvette Alexander, who cast the only dissenting vote, said it made no sense to have a law that decriminalized possession of marijuana while its sale and consumption in public remained criminal offenses. Lucky Strike Click&Roll
“There will still be arrests when someone is smoking marijuana on the corner or when someone is selling marijuana on the corner,” she said, urging the council to take a comprehensive look at the issue. “You can’t deal with little sections of this bill.”
Eidinger said he backed decriminalization only as a way of “breaking the ice” while legalization backers in D.C. remain focused on getting the issue on the November ballot.
If that happens, D.C. will join two states that are set to vote on pot initiatives this year: In August, Alaskans will decide whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use, while Floridians will vote in November on whether to allow it for medical uses.
The issue has won broad backing from D.C. residents.
A Washington Post poll in January found that 63 percent of the city’s citizens now support legalization, with residents of every age, race and ethnicity showing double-digit increases in the past four years. Of those who opposed legalization, nearly half said marijuana should be decriminalized.
Only a handful of residents registered complaints with the council at a public hearing in October: Yvonne Williams, the chairwoman of the board of trustees of Bible Way Church, worried that pot affects the user’s developing brain cells and would lead to a “marijuana industrial complex,” while LaDaveon Butler, a member of the church’s youth ministry, expressed concern about marijuana smoke near his apartment building and said pot made people lazy and unproductive.
But opponents of legalization claimed a victory of sorts in Tuesday’s vote, too.
Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser for President Barack Obama who’s now the director of the anti-legalization group Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), said Congress would be unlikely to interfere because D.C. police weren’t targeting low-level pot users now and that the law “will simply catch up to the reality.”
But he said it was significant that the council opted to approve decriminalization instead of legalization.
“Legalization groups failed to get their true objective voted on because D.C. residents do not want the mass normalization and commercialization of another legal drug,” Sabet said. “I think we can all say that the district is having a difficult time enough dealing with the effects of liquor stores, especially on low-income communities. They don’t want to add another headache.”
D.C. would join 17 states that have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized possession of small amounts, with Vermont the latest to eliminate criminal penalties, last year.
a) Parking near a fire hydrant.
b) Possessing pot.
If you answered “a,” you are correct: Possession of less than an ounce of marijuana would be a civil infraction with a $25 fine under a plan that won easy approval from the District of Columbia City Council on Tuesday.
Backers called it one of the most lenient decriminalization laws in the nation and said the next step would be to make marijuana fully legal in the nation’s capital, as Colorado and Washington state did in 2012.
The bill passed on a 10-1 vote. Once it’s signed by Mayor Vincent Gray, Congress will have 30 working days to review the new law, which means it might not take effect until summer. Congress has the authority to overturn any laws the council passes.
Congress put D.C.’s medical marijuana plan on ice after it passed in 1998, but no one’s expecting a peep of opposition on Capitol Hill this time, another sign of the drug’s surging public acceptance, as reflected by public opinion polls.
“This is just not on their radar,” said Dan Riffle, the director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. “The story is just how much things have changed. Congress just doesn’t care because they’ve got the message this is really popular.”
D.C. council members who backed the change argued that the current penalty _ a fine of up to $1,000 and a possible six-month prison sentence for possessing any amount _ hit minorities disproportionately hard. Studies show the District of Columbia has a higher marijuana arrest rate than any state, with blacks accounting for 90 percent of the arrests.
“One drug charge can change a life forever,” said council member Tommy Wells, the bill’s chief sponsor, who called Tuesday’s decision a “historic vote.”
Critics said the measure didn’t go far enough, still allowing police to issue citations but not permitting D.C. to collect tax revenue from legal marijuana sales.
“Decriminalization is missing out on the tax base, and it’s treating the user still like a second-class citizen,” said Adam Eidinger, the chairman of the D.C. Cannabis Campaign.
He was upset that the council decided to amend the legislation to add a $500 fine and a possible 60-day jail sentence for smoking marijuana in public, keeping it a criminal offense: “If you can smoke a cigarette on the sidewalk, you should be able to smoke a joint on a sidewalk. There really is no difference.”
Things could get a little confusing, with marijuana possession on federal property remaining a federal crime, punishable by a fine of $1,000 and jail time. The federal government owns nearly 22 percent of the land in the federal capital.
“A map of D.C. will be needed, as there will a hodgepodge of laws and enforcement based on where one is standing at any given moment,” said Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Riffle said most people who violated the law on federal property were fined from $100 to $200. He’s expecting the disparity to continue.
“It’s just part of the cluster that is D.C. law,” Riffle said. “I can tell you, as a D.C. resident myself, there’s a lot of things that don’t make sense about the way D.C. is treated.”
Council member Yvette Alexander, who cast the only dissenting vote, said it made no sense to have a law that decriminalized possession of marijuana while its sale and consumption in public remained criminal offenses. Lucky Strike Click&Roll
“There will still be arrests when someone is smoking marijuana on the corner or when someone is selling marijuana on the corner,” she said, urging the council to take a comprehensive look at the issue. “You can’t deal with little sections of this bill.”
Eidinger said he backed decriminalization only as a way of “breaking the ice” while legalization backers in D.C. remain focused on getting the issue on the November ballot.
If that happens, D.C. will join two states that are set to vote on pot initiatives this year: In August, Alaskans will decide whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use, while Floridians will vote in November on whether to allow it for medical uses.
The issue has won broad backing from D.C. residents.
A Washington Post poll in January found that 63 percent of the city’s citizens now support legalization, with residents of every age, race and ethnicity showing double-digit increases in the past four years. Of those who opposed legalization, nearly half said marijuana should be decriminalized.
Only a handful of residents registered complaints with the council at a public hearing in October: Yvonne Williams, the chairwoman of the board of trustees of Bible Way Church, worried that pot affects the user’s developing brain cells and would lead to a “marijuana industrial complex,” while LaDaveon Butler, a member of the church’s youth ministry, expressed concern about marijuana smoke near his apartment building and said pot made people lazy and unproductive.
But opponents of legalization claimed a victory of sorts in Tuesday’s vote, too.
Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser for President Barack Obama who’s now the director of the anti-legalization group Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), said Congress would be unlikely to interfere because D.C. police weren’t targeting low-level pot users now and that the law “will simply catch up to the reality.”
But he said it was significant that the council opted to approve decriminalization instead of legalization.
“Legalization groups failed to get their true objective voted on because D.C. residents do not want the mass normalization and commercialization of another legal drug,” Sabet said. “I think we can all say that the district is having a difficult time enough dealing with the effects of liquor stores, especially on low-income communities. They don’t want to add another headache.”
D.C. would join 17 states that have either decriminalized marijuana or legalized possession of small amounts, with Vermont the latest to eliminate criminal penalties, last year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)