TSA To Lift Ban On Most Lighters On Planes

Security Chief Says Taking Lighters Away From Passengers Was "Security Theater"

(AP)  Airline passengers will be able to bring many types of cigarette lighters on board flights again starting next month, as federal authorities found a two-year-old ban on the devices did little to make flying safer, a newspaper reported Friday.

"Taking lighters away is security theater," Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley told The New York Times in an interview Thursday.

Starting Aug. 4, air travelers will be allowed to carry on disposable butane lighters, such as Bics, and refillable lighters, including Zippos, according to the Times. A prohibition on torch-style lighters, which have hotter flames, will continue.

Lighters have been barred from checked bags for decades because of concerns that the lighters might start fires in cargo holds. Congress decided to stop air travelers from carrying lighters aboard after Richard Reid used matches to try to light explosives hidden in his shoes while on a Paris-to-Miami flight in 2001. Lawmakers worried that Reid might have succeeded if he had had a lighter. The lighter ban took effect in April 2005.

Security screeners now collect an average of 22,000 lighters a day, and it costs about $4 million a year to dispose of them, the Times reported.

"The United States previously had been the only nation in the world to prohibit lighters from carry-ons," the TSA wrote in a press release. "Lifting this ban is another step in our efforts to harmonize security measures with international partners."

Hawley said confiscating lighters hasn't meant much for security, as other items could be used to detonate bombs.

"The No. 1 threat for us is someone trying to bring bomb components through the security checkpoint," the TSA administrator said. "We don't want anything that distracts concentration from searching for that."

The congressional measure that governed the Homeland Security Department's 2007 spending let the agency stop enforcing the lighter ban if it found that "lighters are not a significant threat to civil aviation security."

[nolalou]

Since you can't smoke on a plane, why they heck would you need a lighter??

[rillifane]

Now that they have had two years for everyone to realize that they are morons for confiscating lighters they have finally confirmed it by dropping the ban and admitting it was as idiotic as everyone said it was.

[toolmangler-2009]

Well you could set fire to your hair and burn smack to the ground and when the flames got there it would set off the explosives (m80's) in your shoes. If you are a heavy drinker maybe you might spontaneously combust and set fire to the carpeting. Real bummer.

nolalou:Since you can't smoke on a plane, why they heck would you need a lighter??

So you can smoke during layovers and at your destination. It's irritating - and wasteful - to go on a weekend jaunt and have to find somewhere to buy a new lighter (which you will have to leave behind when you head home.)

[nongeek]

To nolalou: Perhaps you are not a smoker and therefore I can see how it may be hard for you to conceive that smokers generally carry a lighter along with their cigarettes, even though they are not smoking while on the plane. Lets try an analogy that you might possibly be able to comprehend: Since you can't have *** on the plane, why the heck would you need to have a prophylactic in your pocket?

[sandy19731]

Security screeners now collect an average of 22,000 lighters a day, and it costs about $4 million a year to dispose of them, the Times reported.

I'm not a smoker, but why didn't they just leave them in a box for people to take when they had arrived at their destination.

Silly government thinking.

[dcmidnight]

How retarded. I use a torch lighter to light cigars when I travel and would like to be able to carry it with me. Can someone tell me why a Zippo is any safer than a torch lighter? Because a torch lighter can reach higher temps? Thats absurd, they can both me used to light fires or light fuses or melt things, the temperature difference is negligible.

Yet another example of a useless TSA decision that wont make us one bit safer.

[imthebhagwan]

I'm sure the tobacco lobby had something to do with this. Tell me how allowing fire on a plane makes us safer?

[r-u-kidding]

BIC stock just went down. 22,000 lighters a day?!? That's gonna take a chunk out of their sales.

Hey, why do people need to take lighters on anyway. Smoking isn't aloud on planes and it's a small minority of people that smoke anyway. Here's an idea, matches are free at the bar....they cost nothing. Just keep taking the lighters away, because I certainly feel safer knowing that nobody carries matches and lighters on planes.

What a stupid thing to do. Next, they're going to lift the ban on steak knives or boxcutters (the very tools used 9/11) on planes.....then maybe they'll lift the ban on handguns (only rifles would be aloud). IDIOTS!!!

[mojopo1]

HA! I just blogged about this Tuesday!
http://mojopo.blogspot.com/2007/07/confession-time.html

During the entire time this ban was in effect, not ONE of my lighters was ever confiscated. I never hid them - they were always in my coat or purse. It's about time someone used their common sense and stopped wasting our time.

[r-u-kidding]

Hey sandy19731,
What a great idea. TSA can collect lighters on the way in and put them in a box and allow arriving passengers to take one of the confiscated lighters with them as they're leaving the airport. Deposit yours before your departure and pick up someone elses when you land. HOW EASY IS THAT?? Total Cost= $0.

[macusweil]

How refreshing, common sense!!

Bush and his cronies are just killing us with all their useless knee jerk reactions since 9/11 that take away our freedoms and our eye off the ball.

[macusweil]

"Tell me how allowing fire on a plane makes us safer?"

By letting security staff focus on real threats to safety instead of chasing Bic lighters and babys with sippy cups.

[tropikbreze]

I am a smoker who wishes I could quit. However, as the nation works at taking away my freedom to choose to smoke- (especially in a private-owned business)it makes me want to smoke all the more. You have to wear a seatbelt in a vehicle, but not a helmet when you are on a motorcycle (in PA). The laws do not make sense. As long as I continue to smoke, I will be a law-biding citizen regarding smoking laws. I just wish non-smokers would back off a bit. Leave the lighter issue alone. I'd like to see the lawmakers try to ban alcohol again- I bet that wouldn't fly too far!

[sykosam-2009]

tropikbreze, smoking and helmet laws are state laws (obviously not the legal age to smoke, but where you smoke). Here in CA, one of the more strict states in this country, you can't smoke indoors in *public* places and you can't ride a motorcycle without a helmet (or a bicycle, for that matter). These laws are for non-smokers who don't want to poison their bodies just because smokers want to (and, in regards to the helmet, for safety reasons) and/or, for those who may jump on the "secondhand smoke is fairly harmless" train, don't want to be around cigarette smoke. Private places don't have to adhere to non-smoking laws, so far as I'm aware. :)

I WISH a law could be passed for safer gear (aside from just helmets) would be passed... I ride and can't help but cringe when I see someone with a helmet, tank top, shorts and flip-flops riding a motorcycle. Your head is not the only thing that needs protecting!

I do think many of TSA's restrictions are awful (the liquid and gel cr4p is quite annoying, especially if you're not checking any bags!), and am glad that this lighter one is lifted, be it smokers or not. It isn't, after all, just smokers (or terrorists, haha) who carry lighters.

[tropikbreze]

Sykosam-
I completely understand and agree with those who do not want the second hand smoke. (I have not smoked all my life)The first time I have had to deal with no smoking in public places was in Burbank,CA a couple years ago. It was a pain to have a couple sips of beer then go outside to smoke. However, I abided by the law. The restaurant/bar owners in my area are trying to get lawmakers to consider that private owned rest./bars could make it their choice whether they want their establishment to be smoking or non. Especially if it is posted outside their facility. This area has a high population of smokers- we are not in the sticks. We are actually a small tourist town. I got off the subject of what the whole article was about- anyway, good luck with updated laws to protect those on bikes.

[feelfree1]

Related:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will undergo what aides described as a routine colonoscopy on Saturday"

###

Researchers at the Guinness World Records believe that this represents the biggest ****** ever inspected, using this procedure.

[djberson]

Great, now put the ashtrays back into the armrests and we're in business!

[grammawhamma]

Security screeners now collect an average of 22,000 lighters a day, and it costs about $4 million a year to dispose of them, the Times reported.

I'm not a smoker, but why didn't they just leave them in a box for people to take when they had arrived at their destination.

Silly government thinking.
Posted by sandy19731 at 01:58 PM : Jul 20, 2007

Perfect solution Sandy!! Will you run for president?? At least someone still has common sense.

[speakinup]

Guess FeelFree1 would know, he got birthed from it. I wanna know how it's possible to type when your mama has you handcuffed to eight other people. Oh, you are mama.

[bospip]

You've got to be kidding me!! Are they for real or what? Yet another fine example inviting MORE danger our way. There is no such word as "safe" anymore. It's a joke and these morons making these decisions should be ashamed of themselves.

This is beyond ridiculous and I agree with tropikbreze and mojopo1 "What a stupid thing to do. Next, they're going to lift the ban on steak knives or boxcutters (the very tools used 9/11) on planes.....then maybe they'll lift the ban on handguns (only rifles would be aloud). IDIOTS!!"

*PERFECTLY SAID MOJO!!!

A few years go by and there they go FORGETTING what happened!!

Oh yeah, this makes me feel much safer. Complete stupidity!

[bospip]

* Correction *

I meant to say I agree with macusweil "Tell me how allowing fire on a plane makes us safer?"
By letting security staff focus on real threats to safety instead of chasing Bic lighters and babys with sippy cups.

Not tropikbreze...

[tropikbreze]

They didn't do a very good job chasing lighters- I forgot I had one in my purse flying out of LA and they did not see it through the x-ray...

[speakinup]

Well, I'm sure right about now every liberal out there is tryin his dangdest to type in, "I bet George Bush is going to sell his Bic lighter stock now."

Thought I'd throw one in for the gimper - ya'll are beginnin to sound like you need it. Yup, one and a half years. Hope ya'll make it.

[toolmangler-2009]

WISH a law could be passed for safer gear (aside from just helmets) would be passed... I ride and can't help but cringe when I see someone with a helmet, tank top, shorts and flip-flops riding a motorcycle. Your head is not the only thing that needs protecting!
Posted by sykosam at 03:11 PM : Jul 20, 2007


I am against helmet laws but I also think you are stupid (ill_advised) If you do not wear a helmet when riding, I do and I've been riding motorcycles since 1952. I don't believe the insurance industry should make my premiums go up to cover non helmeted injuries. Just don't pay them. Do not reward stupidity. I wore helmets long before they were manditory and they saved my head several times.

[feelfree1]

Related:

"WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year."

"Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country."

"Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html

[fake-id-2009]

Well, I'm sure right about now every liberal out there is tryin his dangdest to type in, "I bet George Bush is going to sell his Bic lighter stock now." Posted by speakinup at 04:30 PM : Jul 20, 2007
______________________________

dis librl caint tipe berry wel butt i new som assshole outt derr wood maik itda librl ting soonerorlader.

whodaphuck is jorge boosh n whaddaphuck be a bic liter?

[fake-id-2009]

whahappn to da boosh kolin'o'scopy storey? It gon b4 i gits a chans to putt my 2 sense der.

nebody got de link?

[rharrin1]

Why would anybody need a lighter YOU STILL CAN'T SMOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tibu987]

How ridiculous. They finally are on the way to getting people to accept the restrictions and then they change their mind. As someone said here, why would they need their lighters, there is no smoking in the terminals or in the planes.
A lighter, like knitting needles, letter openers, all acceptable now but any of which can do a lot of damage.
I know of what I speak as I worked for TSA for three years and there was not a day that I was not surprised by mediocre TSA people making mediocre decisions.
The longest post-training instruction I ever received was how to wand and check a monkey wearing a diaper, a twenty-five minute discourse.
No one had ever seen a monkey come through the airport in the three years I was there.
Meanwhile, many new and important information facts about threats and numerous dangerous new items were never discussed and learned about only in informal discussions.
To me, any potentially dangerous item, no matter how big or small, should be restricted.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or in this case, an airplane kept flying free of danger.

[keithle1]

Can't smoke on planes so who cares? Why is this even news?

[robertkjjj]

Wow, it took them only 2 years to figure out it made no difference? Usually the TSA doesn't move that FAST. Bunch of losers and f*****king idiots, every single rule and regulation they make up is either idiotic or simply a reaction to the latest buffoon attempt(shoes, liquids, etc) to harm a plane. The whole agency should be fired and replaced with McDonalds employees; nobody would know the difference. Should be called TCA (Training Clowns Agency) instead.

[nvme3]

they are doing a colonoscopy to the prez's brain.

[ecuadoriana]

Last week I took a flight to visit family in another state. Flying out I went through security so fast it seemed like no one was even manning the gate. No one even looked at me & no one was manning the Xray screen, although I still had to remove my shoes (good grief!) & walk through the scanner.

Coming back I had even less items in my one carry on bag than I did flying out & yet I was stopped, pulled aside & had my bag openned & pawed through in front of all my soon to be fellow passengers (I felt a lot of nervous, hairy eyeballs darting at the back of my head!).

What dangerous items showed up on the X-ray machine? 3 tampons & a mascara tube! They let me keep the tampons, but confiscated the mascara! I guess they were afraid I was gonna go all Marilyn Manson or Alice Cooper on them & cause a Mascara Massacre!

Yet they want to re-allow incendiary devices such as lighters to be brought on flights for the convenience of the passengers who can't handle life without their smokes?????? The tobacco industry obviously is the fuel behind this bass-ackwards thinking!

[zootallures2]

Great idea! Seeing that you can't smoke on a plane or terminal anyway, let me guess?... new taxpayer federal fire insurance coverage that pays double for each plane crash due to fire related terrorism on the planes?

[diverinnl]

ecuadoriana, great post. Some fuzzy nut high up in TSA or Homeland Security probably had his lighter confiscated and had to splurge for a new $1.25 Bic. Suddenly it's a pointless rule after two years?

[seer999]

If my calculations are right, thats about 19 Million dollars wasted on "security theater". I wonder what the government would do to me if I cost them 19 million dollars for "theater"?
Now lets look at bottled water, makeup, taking our shoes off, etc., etc. A little known fact: the government does ongoing testing of our security screening system by sending agents with fake bombs, guns etc through security. Would you care to guess what happened to their scores after initiating all these little extra "security" measures? Yep, the number of missed artcles went way up. So, you may get a gun on board a plane, but by god that mascara will be confiscated. Security theater indeed!

[seer999]

Tibu: There is such a thing as common sense. I'm just waiting for someone to try and sneak something on a plane in their butts. Want to guess what the next "theater" will be?
And guess what nvme3, people have just as much right to smoke as you do to wear mascara, or are only YOUR freedoms important?

[ecuadoriana]

(cont.)
But the real point here is not smokers vs mascara wearers. The real point is the insanity that fuels a debate as to whether things like mascara, deodorant, nail clippers, toothpaste are more dangerous to bring on a plane than something that can set fire to the cabin & detonate an explosive. Protecting the rights of the smokers to light up immediately upon exiting the airport now takes precedence over the safety of the passengers?! Rather than pumping oxygen into the cabin they may as well pump cigarette smoke! Then the smokers wouldn't need their lighters at all & the non-smokers would probably beat them to death with the in-flight magazines anyway (win-win, I say)!

I propose a solution. Airlines can run "Smokers Only" flights. Then everyone can bring aboard all the bics they want (the attendants can even sell them along with the $5 cans of Bud Light)! In consideration for the more healthful minded people, they could run "Non-Smokers Only" flights where it wouldn't occur to anyone to be so idiotic as to bring a lighter on board. Maybe they could even have "Nekked with No Baggage" flights- no clothes or shoes, no toothbrushes, no cell phones or laptops, nothing!

I might be on to something. Watch this space for further details!

[ecuadoriana]

"...nvme3, people have just as much right to smoke as you do to wear mascara..." Posted by seer999 at 12:22 PM : Jul 21, 2007

Seer999, I believe you inadvertently misdirected your comment to the wrong poster. Nvme3 didn't mention mascara in his post, I did. Assuming it was me you meant to question/attack, I will attempt to clarify the situation.

Sure people have as much right to smoke as I do to wear a bit of mascara. The difference is that those around me will not suffer from second-hand black lashes, while those near smokers WILL suffer from second-hand black lungs. (I'm a firm believer in the right to kill oneself, but not to take innocent bystanders with you.)
(cont.)

[gramto7]

I propose a solution. Airlines can run "Smokers Only" flights. Then everyone can bring aboard all the bics they want (the attendants can even sell them along with the $5 cans of Bud Light)! In consideration for the more healthful minded people, they could run "Non-Smokers Only" flights where it wouldn't occur to anyone to be so idiotic as to bring a lighter on board. Maybe they could even have "Nekked with No Baggage" flights- no clothes or shoes, no toothbrushes, no cell phones or laptops, nothing!

I might be on to something. Watch this space for further details!
Posted by ecuadoriana

I don't think I'd like the 'nekked' version, but I might be interested in the smokers only flights!! Keep us posted!

[mommajomma-2009]

Funny thing.... there's a comment box on the lighter ban removal... but not on the article reporting a rocket launcher in a womans yard near an airport. CBS didnt want any comments on that one. After all, pretty boy edwards says terrorism is just a bumper sticker slogan for republicans.

[keithle1]

Someone will try to set fire to his seat cushion & they'll ban lighters again. Maybe someone else
who is drunk will attack a flight attendant with a pen/pencil or hit them over the head with a laptop. Ban those!

[agnim]

No lighter should be allowed on an airline.

What the hell is a passenger going to do with a lighter but to MAKE A FIRE ON THE PLANE!

Let the addict save the cigarette until he's back on the ground.

[agnim]

Lighter plus a little solvent soaked material == FIRE ON A PLANE!

NO LIGHTERS ON PLANE!

Passengers should be told who has a lighter before the plane takes off.

[slim1h2o]

No lighter should be allowed on an airline.

What the hell is a passenger going to do with a lighter but to MAKE A FIRE ON THE PLANE!

Let the addict save the cigarette until he's back on the ground.
Posted by Agnim at 04:01 PM : Jul 22, 2007


You're an IDIOT! nobody is going to set the plane on fire, (unless they are trapped in a snowstorm,) so the passengers can get off the plane,.... maybe,...... Then? naw, noway YOU ARE A IDIOT,......nuff said

[ecuadoriana]

"...nobody is going to set the plane on fire..." Posted by slim1h2o at 09:28 PM : Jul 22, 2007

Right, and no one is going to bring a gun or bomb on the plane either. And who in their right mind would ever try to hijack an airplane? That would be silly.

So, I was right all along- this "war on terror" was bogus from the beginning, all a set up for BushWhacked to justify the bombing & occupation of another country for his game of world domination....

But moms can't bring juice in Sippy Cups on planes to give their toddlers something to drink, I can't bring mascarra, toothpaste is super dangerous, don't get me started on deodorant...