Under Section 13-26 of the Article 2 of Code of Ordinances “no person in charge of or working in connection with any public display of fireworks shall smoke at any time during which such public display is going on or in the vicinity of materials to be used for such display”. In the same Article the definition of fireworks is given and all, in fact, the cases, when smoking is prohibited near them, are foreseen.
Among groups, which support the idea of banning the firework or, at least, limitation of their usage are optometrists, certain groups of local authorities as well as environmental and animal protection NGOs, according to which “displays also cause considerable disruption to wildlife and household pets as well as environmental problems” (Harriet 2009). Local authorities, knowing the danger of certain explosion, also support the idea of limitation of fireworks. Thus, they are to provide strict rules concerning the selling of such goods, namely propose the idea of additional preventive measures, such as completely separate place for their saving, additional signs about the dangers and so on, which will be implemented to the Code.
The audience of the text and section is different. While first one pursues the preventive aim so as not to allow anybody to cause fire with negligence, law punishes only a worker dealing with fireworks. As far as we could suppose, the target of the sign is to draw audience’s attention to the probability of accident, fatal consequences to occur in the store. Providing the additional information under the prohibition itself could also positively affect the customers. For instance, the information concerning the number of accidents occurred due to negligent attitude towards exploitation of fireworks. All in all, it is better to prevent than to look at how crucial consequences happen.
Work cited
1. Harriet, Alexander (2009) Should fireworks be banned? Retrieved from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/6507958/Should-fireworks-be-banned.html
