In 2007, consumers nationwide spent $620 million on backyard fireworks. Every year, Massachusetts residents cross the border into New Hampshire to buy fireworks and bring them back home. Not only are we losing potential tax revenue and job creation by keeping fireworks illegal, but we waste law enforcement resources prosecuting a victimless crime. In years past, the Massachusetts State Police has gone so far as to stakeout New Hampshire fireworks stores and follow cars back into Massachusetts. We have bigger problems in our state than bottle rockets and jumping jacks. Surely, there are bigger fish to fry for the staties.
Back during the 2003 fiscal crisis, Massachusetts legalized the sale of alcohol on Sundays, in recognition of the tax revenue we were losing to New Hampshire. We will probably do the same with casino gaming; again, in recognition of the revenue we’re losing to Connecticut and Rhode Island. Fireworks should be no different.
My understanding is that it is illegal to set off fireworks in MA as well, except by a trained professional. This strikes me as asking for trouble to allow just anybody to purchase and use fireworks. I would, however, be interested to know how other states, like NH, handle the safety issue.
EMT calls.
<
p>
Th “state” doesn’t “handle” the safety issue. If you’re fool enough to blow your hand off NH feels your pain, that’s about it.
<
p>NH has laws which define permissible fireworks and where and when and by whom they can be used. They leave the majority of safety concerns up to the citizen who choose to partake.
<
p>Fireworks don’t do much for me but that doesn’t mean I want to tell you that you shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy them. Just don’t ask me to make sure you enjoy them safely, that’s your responsibility.
From here:
What is legal in NH?
Also:
I was responding to the question about how the “state” handles the safety issue, not the municipalities, maybe I missed that part of Christopher’s statement.
<
p>I mentioned that the state regulates “permissible fireworks and where and when and by whom they can be used”, then you backed up that statement with your comment about specifically what they permit.
<
p>As for your third block, nothing I disagree with there, but I’m not seeing anything about the state and how it handles the safety issue, just municipalities.
<
p>So as I said, I must be stupid, because I can’t figure out what I said that was “FALSE”.
I honor your service to our country.
I realized I used the word “state”, but if the answer is that the municipalities to more of the regulating that would have been a legitimate answer to my question. It’s not just the safety of the people who set them off, but those in the vicinity that might get hurt. This is one of those areas where I don’t put a lot of faith in common sense.
on the level of intelligence of our fellow man.
“If you’re fool enough to blow your hand off NH feels your pain, that’s about it.” The list of things that the state has declared illegal includes just about everything that could blow your hand off. To me, that makes your statement false. Or maybe I’m stupid.
for being hurt physically by fireworks. I guess neither of us is stupid after all.
Most of the fireworks that are sold in NH are illegal for use in NH. One agrees to set them off out of state, like Massachusetts, Vermont or Maine. Where of course, the use is illegal also.
Although we handled fireworks as kids without any injuries, it was more luck than adherence to safe practices… Okay, there was no safety involved whatsoever.
Let’s not forget the Rhode Island nightclub tragedy. I know too many people that have been injured by fireworks!
<
p>DUMB and DUMBER!
The problem in Rhode Island was not the fireworks — although they should not have been set off, in my opinion — but the fact that the nightclub owners did not have the building up to code, and inspectors did not note their noncompliance.
<
p>More to the point, there are many things far, far more dangerous than fireworks that we allow. By your argument, those should also be forbidden.
his argument was that fireworks shouldn’t be legalized. Your argument was that we needed to invade Vietnam so the rest of the world wouldn’t become communist. Of course, that’s snark, but slippery slope arguments are usually pretty lame, including your argument that included zero facts and a lot of supposition.
The Centers for Disease Control has these statistics on firworks related injuries. Sounds like fun to me!
As much as I like a good sparkler, I just don’t think the revenue would be that high.
<
p>Let’s assume that MA would capture 5% of the backyard fireworks market. That’s 1/20th of the country’s fireworks that would be sold here in MA. I think that’s a more-than-generous estimate.
<
p>That gives the state ~$31 million in sales. The 5% sales tax on those sales would end up being $1,550,000.
<
p>Now, $1.5 million is a lot more than nothing, but frankly it’s a few beans in terms of what has been cut and what will be cut from the budget. Legalizing fireworks would require a lot of political energy and capital, and would not produce a worthwhile level of return.
<
p>Not enough bang for the bucks, if you will…
you ought to give us 5% of the 9,200 injuries and 11 deaths a year.
<
p>That’s 460 trips to the ER and a dead body every two years. For $1,550,000 in revenue. If the deaths are “free” the ER trips are netting the state $3400 in tax revenue each.
<
p>So, for every $3400 we make in state tax, we’ve got to subsidize health care, pay disability, and perhaps create a lifetime of less-capable worker.
<
p>Additionally, given that MA is more dense than most states, the risk of damaging someone else’s property is generally higher. This doesn’t even get into the pollution issues, which are substantial — perchlorates, metals, oxides, etc.
You’ve just made an excellent argument for making alcohol, cigarettes, and contact sports illegal in Massachusetts as well.
I wasn’t arguing that fireworks should or shouldn’t be illegal. I was merely pointing out that if the argument for fireworks is revenue than there’s an argument against them based on affiliated costs.
<
p>Maybe we as a society don’t care about the revenue or costs enough to ban them, only regulate their usage (like booze and smokes). Maybe we as a society believe that the physical, emotional, cultural, and social aspects of the issue are worth those costs (like contact sports).
Don’t forget that most states not only specifically prohibit certain types of fireworks (usually the more popular types like firecrackers, roman candles, and sparklers), but many also enforce age restrictions. A good number of states also limit the legal selling period to a few weeks around the 4th of July. With those kinds of restrictions, a state can’t re-capture a significant enough chunk of illegal sales to make a meaningful profit.
Who stole our libertarians?
and suffice to say, I know that fireworks can be very dangerous. However, that does not mean we should not be allowed to responsibly use them.
<
p>That’s all I can muster.
<
p>If they legalized the fireworks, they’d only pass a fireworks tax to pay for the Fireworks Safety Bureau, a division of Health and Human Services. For the children.
now only outlaws have fireworks!
Once upon a time there was a lot of waste and corruption in the government. Vendors and their political cronies were sucking up billions (when a billion was a lot of money). A senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, was tasked with the job of proving that “a billion saved is a billion earned.” What became known as the Truman Commission saved over 15 billion dollars. A lot of money in those days. Today, the Federal cronies have fought tooth and nail to ensure such group does not get re-established. What could a state version of the Truman Commission save for the taxpayer?
<
p>While raising taxes and seeking new sources of finance appeals to all politicians, could we not use what we already have more efficiently? What of an agency (perhaps semi-private as the Board of Bar Overseers) that is funded by a percentage of the monies they save? One that listens to whistleblowers?
<
p>How much would reviewing and closing state dormant accounts in banks retrieve? What of all the dormant accounts in inmate funds in prisons, jails and houses of correction? How much is out there? Anyone know?
<
p>Maybe this state, as the Federal government, is just too used to jamming the taxpayer to change.
While the politicians mouth the mantra of changing government they cling for dear life to the old systems. Caught in a system that will only lead to greater problems down the road when hyperinflation takes over (ala the Carter administration suffering from the Nixon excess), they chant “tax and revenue, tax and revenue.” “Savings through intelligent use of resources” is not included.
<
p>One, small idea. Does anyone think that it is efficient for small towns of less than 10,000 people to maintain their own school, police and fire departments? While these services need exist, isn’t it smarter to regionalize these services, eliminating the resource sucking administrative functions? Last I checked, communications have improved with the use of telephone, paved road and even something called the Internet. Efficiency need not suffer. Some of these towns have less than 300 students and a superintendent. The police and fire chief can make over $100,000 for jobs that are part-time at best. Efficiency can improve as more taxpayers become available to watch the service providers. Yeah, I know no town in the great Commonwealth is going to go for this, but the Legislature could, mandating regionalization via county or some other grouping. I won’t hold my breath.
<
p>The BMG people are a cut above most people in political savvy. What kind of ideas do the BMG bloggers have? Maybe something bi-partisan, to include both the Republicans left in the state…
“Got any illegal fireworks”-Homer Simpson
<
p>Sorry just thought that was appropriate for this thread. Coincidentally in that episode the Simpsons go over a Bourne-esque Bridge and summer in ‘Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport’ so the incident in the video arguably occurs in our very state serving as a reason either to legalize so that safer fireworks in the open can be sold to reasonable people or a reason to keep it illegal since we dont want people like Homer Simpson to get it 😉
a) thinks legalizing fireworks would be a bad idea and
<
p>b) doesn’t think we’ll make any money, if at all, when you factor in the cost of injuries, deaths, property as well as environmental damage.
<
p>Disclosure: fireworks, up close and personal, scare the hell out of me.
I initially thought this post was a joke, possibly offered by an opponent of casino gambling to poke fun at those who might seek to raise revenue by legalizing/promoting/taxing inherently dangerous or destructive activity.
<
p>An earlier reference to Kirth’s bio led me to check it out. He bemoans the “deterioration” of our society. I do also. Wouldn’t the act of legalizing fireworks be a bit of a move in that direction? I’m not proposing a return to Prohibition, and I acknowledge that weaning ourselves from the milk of lotteries, etc. would be near impossible at this point, but those analogies don’t convince me to throw caution to the wind.
<
p>While desperate times provide opportunity for dramatic change, there has to be room for thoughtful reflection on the long term impact of the changes we make.
that the deterioration that I noted in passing somehow includes the outlawing of fireworks. For the record, I do not think legalizing them would be a good idea.
Fireworks are not safe so dont allow them to be sold!
<
p>How many accidents occur each year due to alcohol exposure? Why is that substance legal?
<
p>Am I less safe in my car without a seatbelt vs a motorcyclist? If both crashed at 40MPH which driver is more likely to have serious injuries? Why is it legal for the motorcyclist to drive without a seatblet and illegal for me to drive without the belt?
<
p>Shall I continue? Safety is all about what you like or dont like, if you dont have experience or find enjoyment from fireworks you say they are not safe. If you like a glass of wine once in a while, you consider it safe. Safety is a very personal journey. I am safer 40,000 miles above the earth in an airplane vs driving to the store for some milk, no one argues for elimnating the automobile.
<
p>
A motorcyclist is not safer wearing a seatbelt – he or she is more likely to be seriously injured if strapped to a quarter ton of steel sliding down the road than if allowed to slide along alone. Nor is such a motorcyclist safer, with or without a seatbelt, than someone sitting inside a two-ton padded steel box. Even Joan Claybrook never advocated seatbelts for bikers, AFAIK. Full disclosure: I have crashed bikes at low speed, at highway speed, and at over 100 mph.
<
p>I assume your question about alcohol is rhetorical. If not, I suggest you read up on the Volstead Act.
<
p>Safety is not “all about what you like or don’t like” – WRT legislation, it’s about what risks are acceptable and what prohibitions have acceptable negative results. Prohibition looked like a winner, but had serious negative effects, because too many people enjoyed drinking too much to do without it. Outlawing fireworks doesn’t have such strong negatives, and allowing them wouldn’t have much in the way of benefits.
<
p>BTW, if you’re 40,000 miles above the earth in an airplane, you’d better be writing your will, because you’re not going to land alive, if you land at all.