The recent letters against fireworks in Tumwater are contributory to the misleading nature of the No campaign. The central image of their yard signs is a sky-rocket — devices that have never been legal and still wouldn’t even if Initiative 1 is adopted. The No campaign uses national statistics on their flyer to document the rise in fireworks injuries because they can’t cite Tumwater statistics to make their point.
Besides, most fireworks injuries are from M-80s, firecrackers, and bottle rockets that have never been legal either, but will continue to be imported into Tumwater whether Initiative 1 passes or not. It is these explosive items, by the way, that trigger PTSD stresses in people and pets, not the safe and sane variety that Yes on 1 would legalize. Ground blooms, “snakes,” sparklers, paper parachutes and cylindrical fountains are not the problem but they will be banned unless Initiative 1 passes.
Of course, every argument made against consumer fireworks can be applied to the municipal show on the 4th. The cannon-like shocks and booms can be heard for miles, and they pollute the water and air of Tumwater Valley. Trust me: as soon as home use of fireworks is banned, the prohibitionists will turn next to the city’s display, which they cynically tout now as a political refuge. It is ironic that one writer cites “the greed of the fireworks industry” yet the city supports that same industry with a $20,000 purchase every summer.