Editorials
Monday, January 3, 2000Time to crack down
on use of fireworksLAST week we asked what it would take to spur state and city-county legislators to institute effective controls on fireworks, if not a total ban.The issue: A 25-year-old man was killed while setting off fireworks.
The death of a 25-year-old Waialua man who was setting off firecrackers at his home New Year's Eve is a grim illustration of the harm fireworks can do. Stephen Senas died of head injuries suffered when an aerial fireworks device exploded. Officials said it was the first fireworks-related death since 1995.
Perhaps this unfortunate death will be enough to induce legislators to take action. State Rep. Nestor Garcia, a cousin of the dead man, said the accident has forced him to reconsider his position on a fireworks ban. But it should not take the death of a relative to prompt legislators to come to their senses.
In addition to the fatality, there were dozens of incidents related to the profligate use of fireworks not only on New Year's Eve but for days in advance. Legal restrictions on the hours of permissible use -- as well as the ban on aerial fireworks -- were brazenly ignored. To their credit, the police made several arrests of vendors, but it was not enough to prevent the fireworks frenzy.
State Health Director Bruce Anderson said the smoke from the fireworks may have been the thickest in local history. Results from the Health Department's monitoring of air quality are expected to be available this week.
"I'm expecting that we're going to see air quality impacts that would exceed state or federal air quality standards for at least a few hours," Anderson said.
"We've had dozens of people with burn injuries and with respiratory problems reported in emergency rooms," he said.
Fire crews responded to 44 fireworks-related incidents on New Year's Eve, and another 39 between midnight and 8 a.m. Sunday morning. Up to 10 structural fires may have been fireworks-related.
Setting off fireworks is inherently dangerous. It's common for people to lose eyes and fingers.
Moreover, lives are endangered when fireworks start house fires, as often happens -- not to mention the cost in property damage and the discomfort suffered by people with respiratory problems.
Every year it seems that the fireworks appear a few days earlier. State Sen. Cal Kawamoto said he could hear firecrackers going off when he was in church on Christmas Eve. Some of this year's fireworks were as loud as cannon fire.
Governor Cayetano's call a year ago for a total ban on fireworks fell on deaf ears at the Legislature. Perhaps this year will be different.
If a total ban is not enacted, then the penalty for illegal sale and possession of fireworks -- particularly aerial firecrackers -- should be strengthened sufficiently to serve as an effective deterrent to vendors. Little improvement can be expected unless the supply is cut off.
Subdued handover
of Panama CanalTHE United States marked the millennium in inglorious fashion in the handover of the Panama Canal. Ending nearly a century of U.S. jurisdiction over the waterway last Friday, Panama's President Mireya Moscoso and Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera signed a document formalizing Panama's possession of the canal.
Dec. 31 was the deadline for the handover of the canal and all surrounding land under treaties signed in 1977 by military strongman Omar Torrijos and President Jimmy Carter. The treaties dictated a gradual transfer culminating in the handover.
However, the U.S. flag did not fly at Friday's ceremony. It had been lowered for the last time at sundown Thursday. The reason appeared to be that the Clinton administration wanted to play down the handover. Former Panamanian Foreign Minister Jorge Ritter said, "I cannot understand the last-minute decision to do this as if it was something shameful."
This wasn't the first snub concerning the canal handover. At the last minute Secretary of State Madeleine Albright canceled her visit to Panama for an earlier ceremony on Dec. 14.
The canal handover was a source of controversy for years. The Clinton administration apparently wanted to avoid further criticism in Congress by keeping a low profile at the ceremony.
But this was not the way the United States should behave.
The impetus for the treaties came from a 1964 protest demonstration that attempted to enter the Canal Zone. The protesters were rebuffed by U.S. Marines who opened fire and killed 23 marchers. Panama suspended diplomatic relations with the United States. The incident helped launch the negotiations that eventually led to the transfer treaties.
Panama and the United States have had a special relationship since 1903, when the United States supported Panama's efforts to secede from Colombia in order to make construction of a canal possible.
AFTER Panama gained independence, it signed a treaty with the United States for the construction of the canal. The United States was given 360,000 acres along the canal, which evolved into a military and civilian enclave.
The Panama Canal treaties are nothing to be ashamed of. They recognize Panama's sovereignty over the canal while protecting the U.S. interest in keeping it operating.
President Clinton should have represented the United States on this historic occasion, even if meant subjecting himself to political flak. It would have been the honorable thing to do.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
