Ban on Lighters
Apr 15th, 2005, 05:12 PM
#41
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo, traveler - you're quite an expert, aren't you.
Well, hear this: the baggage hold is pressurized, heated and cooled with the same air as the passenger cabin.
If it weren't, your shampoo would freeze and your Pomeranian would suffocate.
Got it?
Well, hear this: the baggage hold is pressurized, heated and cooled with the same air as the passenger cabin.
If it weren't, your shampoo would freeze and your Pomeranian would suffocate.
Got it?
Apr 15th, 2005, 06:07 PM
#43
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo Ropespierre, you're grasping at straws to try and valid your ridiculous post on gas lighters and potentially blowing out the side of an aircraft...get real! Again there's a reason for things of that nature not to be put in the cargo hold and now a reason for people not to carry such items as carry-on.
Got it?
Got it?
Apr 15th, 2005, 06:10 PM
#44
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love this from SW Airlines Q&A:
<b>Why is TSA banning lighters?</b>
It’s federal law. The president signed an intelligence reform bill into law on December 17, 2004. The bill included a mandate to add “butane lighters” to the Prohibited Items List. However, TSA screeners may not be able to distinguish between butane lighters and other types of lighters; accordingly, TSA added ALL lighters to the Prohibited Items List to avoid confusion. TSA believes that this change is fully consistent with Congressional intent.
<b>Why is TSA banning lighters?</b>
It’s federal law. The president signed an intelligence reform bill into law on December 17, 2004. The bill included a mandate to add “butane lighters” to the Prohibited Items List. However, TSA screeners may not be able to distinguish between butane lighters and other types of lighters; accordingly, TSA added ALL lighters to the Prohibited Items List to avoid confusion. TSA believes that this change is fully consistent with Congressional intent.
Apr 16th, 2005, 08:10 AM
#46
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite obviously people would like to be able to smoke between planes. Book matches have all but disappeared but can be found. I know we'll be bringing some on our very long flights this summer.
In Dec./Jan. of 90/91 we flew on TWA between Cairo and Rome and had to remove all batteries from cameras, radios, etc. This was not a TWA regulation; it was an airport reg. The 1st Gulf War was about to begin. Inconvenient but ...
In Dec./Jan. of 90/91 we flew on TWA between Cairo and Rome and had to remove all batteries from cameras, radios, etc. This was not a TWA regulation; it was an airport reg. The 1st Gulf War was about to begin. Inconvenient but ...
Apr 16th, 2005, 09:03 AM
#48
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 37,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, frankly, "intelligence" and "government" in the same sentence is a clear oxymoron. It's all a bunch of hooey and MY question is, when are they going to screen cargo? The new report from our Homeland Security, and the Government Accountability Office will say that TSA is pretty much a joke and not a lot has changed since 9/11 in spite of the billions spent. Gee, I am just shocked to hear that. 
Apr 16th, 2005, 09:06 AM
#49
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Robespierre, in regard to why lighters are banned and matches aren't. . .this was explained on the news (I think CNN) that the real reason is that it's easier to enforce the rule for lighters. Contrary to what someone above said about silver or gold ones not showing up, I suspect the idea is that the mechanical workings of any lighter will be enough to show up or set off an alarm. But matches will not set off anything or even show up clearly apparently on a screen, so there is no way to enforce it like there is lighters.
Kind of logical in a way, but how sad to say "we won't enforce banning matches even though they may be dangerous because we don't know how to ban them."
Kind of logical in a way, but how sad to say "we won't enforce banning matches even though they may be dangerous because we don't know how to ban them."
Apr 16th, 2005, 09:46 AM
#50
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Does Not Compute.
If matches cannot be detected, why even bother to ban lighters if they are no more dangerous? I think the answer lies in what LVSue posted above:
"The [intelligence reform] bill included a mandate to add '<b>butane</b> lighters' to the Prohibited Items List." [Emphasis mine.]
They wanted to ban <i>gas</i> lighters because they represent a different class of threat than either matches or liquid-fueled lighters. <u>All</u> lighters were included by default because the screeners can't always tell the difference.
Once more: the TSA is concerned that a <i>gas</i> lighter can be used as a bomb - a threat that other lighters and matches do not pose. The statement that they would prohibit matches if they could is disingenuous.
If matches cannot be detected, why even bother to ban lighters if they are no more dangerous? I think the answer lies in what LVSue posted above:
"The [intelligence reform] bill included a mandate to add '<b>butane</b> lighters' to the Prohibited Items List." [Emphasis mine.]
They wanted to ban <i>gas</i> lighters because they represent a different class of threat than either matches or liquid-fueled lighters. <u>All</u> lighters were included by default because the screeners can't always tell the difference.
Once more: the TSA is concerned that a <i>gas</i> lighter can be used as a bomb - a threat that other lighters and matches do not pose. The statement that they would prohibit matches if they could is disingenuous.
Apr 16th, 2005, 11:13 AM
#51
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That Does Not Compute."
"The statement that they would prohibit matches if they could is disingenuous."
Sorry. I thought you asked, and I replied with what an official being interviewed on national news said. Sorry if you don't agree with that reasoning, or you if you just think he was lying for some reason.
If there were a way to ban all evil in the world, don't you think they would do it? The problem is there is no way to enforce it. That may be a rather extreme example, but I don't think it's so unbelievable that the reason they don't ban matches is that there is no way to do that as well.
"The statement that they would prohibit matches if they could is disingenuous."
Sorry. I thought you asked, and I replied with what an official being interviewed on national news said. Sorry if you don't agree with that reasoning, or you if you just think he was lying for some reason.
If there were a way to ban all evil in the world, don't you think they would do it? The problem is there is no way to enforce it. That may be a rather extreme example, but I don't think it's so unbelievable that the reason they don't ban matches is that there is no way to do that as well.
Apr 16th, 2005, 01:53 PM
#52
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...the real reason is that it's easier to enforce the rule for lighters."
Okay, if you want to call that a "real reason," you are well within your rights. But I still haven't heard the rationale for outlawing lighters and allowing matches. Why bother with the lighters?
Okay, if you want to call that a "real reason," you are well within your rights. But I still haven't heard the rationale for outlawing lighters and allowing matches. Why bother with the lighters?
Apr 16th, 2005, 02:20 PM
#53
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What part of "it's easier to enforce the ban on lighters" do you not understand?
Most states have a law against carrying a gun. It is a law that is relatively easy to enforce (if they find one).
There is no law prohibiting carrying poison on you. Yet poison can kill a person just as easily as a gun. Or for that matter carrying a rope.
Life isn't fair, Robespierre. You will never find a satisfactory answer to many of life's mysteries. Perhaps this will remain one for you.
Most states have a law against carrying a gun. It is a law that is relatively easy to enforce (if they find one).
There is no law prohibiting carrying poison on you. Yet poison can kill a person just as easily as a gun. Or for that matter carrying a rope.
Life isn't fair, Robespierre. You will never find a satisfactory answer to many of life's mysteries. Perhaps this will remain one for you.
Apr 16th, 2005, 04:27 PM
#56
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm surprised no one has mentioned it in 60 posts as it has been quite well plublicised...the powerful tobacco lobby in the US has fought the ban on both matches and lighters. Since this is an assault on smokers, they are very much against it.
anything that sparks a flame has no place on an airplane. disallowing a corkscrew whilst allowing a lighter is foolish. common sense goes out the window when powerful special interests are involved.
anything that sparks a flame has no place on an airplane. disallowing a corkscrew whilst allowing a lighter is foolish. common sense goes out the window when powerful special interests are involved.
Apr 16th, 2005, 04:35 PM
#57
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You aren't reading carefully. I didn't say "there will NEVER be another attack," I said that any terrorist who tries to hijack an airplane will be killed by the passengers before his mission is accomplished. Attacking a hardened target would be stupid, and our adversaries aren't stupid. So they won't do that.
We have known since 1995 that al-Qaeda have thought about simultaneously blowing up a dozen U.S. civilian airliners. And we also know that they don't give up if their plans are thwarted. Remember, the World Trade Center came down on the <u>second</u> try. I think the next attack will be bombs on airplanes. If they succeed, our air transport industry will die of strangulation, and the economy right behind it.
When I said "we'll be much safer if TSA is blissfully unaware of the dangers that face us," I was using a literary device known as <i>irony</i> (saying the opposite of what I think for comedic effect). Next time, I'll use <IRONY> tags so the overly literal-minded won't be confused.
We have known since 1995 that al-Qaeda have thought about simultaneously blowing up a dozen U.S. civilian airliners. And we also know that they don't give up if their plans are thwarted. Remember, the World Trade Center came down on the <u>second</u> try. I think the next attack will be bombs on airplanes. If they succeed, our air transport industry will die of strangulation, and the economy right behind it.
When I said "we'll be much safer if TSA is blissfully unaware of the dangers that face us," I was using a literary device known as <i>irony</i> (saying the opposite of what I think for comedic effect). Next time, I'll use <IRONY> tags so the overly literal-minded won't be confused.
