Cigarettes, Beer Still Present at Former Deutsche Bank Site

Being a retired member of the NYPD I'm entirely sympathetic to the deaths of these two men in what's probably even a deeper way than most civilians. But I am also an anti-anti-smoking advocate that seeks to keep discussions on the issue on the level.

The anti-smoking campaign has turned into a hate-filled anti-smokER campaign and any instance to add fuel to that fire is grasped at. In this day and age it's easy to point the finger at smokers and everyone nods with a sneer. Case closed, right?

Except all I've ever read in regard to a cigarette having "caused" this fire is "believed", "apparently", "suspected", etc. Thus my question is: Does the FDNY KNOW it was caused by a cigarette? Or is it just a guess?

(And I'm compelled to point out the fact that our state mandates that only fire-safe cigarettes be sold. These cigarettes are supposed to self-extinguish if not puffed on continuously.)

If it's a guess then not only is it a grave disservice (i.e. misdirected attention that ignores action on the real problem) to the victims, their families, and the members of the FDNY out there fighting fires but another piece of slander against smokers as a whole.

It's been reported that many small fires were started and extinguished in that building prior to this one that were started by sparks with the use of machinery used to clean up/dismantle the building. Why is THIS not accepted as an equally possible explanation? -- in light of the fact that there apparently seems to be no conclusive evidence that a cigarette started the fire, only a belief.

I'd be happy to eat my words regarding the cause if anyone can prove I'm wrong. But my point here would still be valid. It still wouldn't be smoking or a smoker or a cigarette that started this fire... it would be CARELESSNESS that started it. Let's stop blaming a group as a whole or an inanimate object and start blaming the CARELESSNESS of the one individual.

There's no reason why a worker can't have a cigarette as long as he/she isn't near anything combustible and if s/he's mandated, let's say, to drop the ash and then cigarette in water.

I hope you'll understand that when we smokers have been subjected to the most vile of hate-filled speech ("killers") and actual physical assaults -- prompted by the ongoing "denormalization" tactics of the anti-smoker brigade that includes the likes of Bloomberg -- our antenna pricks up at any sign of something new feeding those tactics and goes on the defense. Our record has been strong on reading the signs. When smoking was banned in most restaurants in 1995 we were warning that bans in bars would be next. By following the behind-the-scenes action of the anti-smoker crusade we're in a much better position to know what we see going on when we see it. This is one of these times. Trust me.

Though none of this would have happened if the fear-mongerers would get out of the way. "Toxic building" they scream when, to date, there is no such proof of any harmful level. That building would have been down long before this fire were it not for the false alarmism. But that's another subject (along the lines of secondhand smoke too) for another day.

Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)