Unexpected Consequences - Smoking Bans/Drunk Driving

[BeBop]

Unlucky strikes

Apr 3rd 2008

From The Economist print edition

America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents

BANNING smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm. That, at least, is the theory. Whether it works may depend on how uniform anti-smoking legislation is.

Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a piecemeal approach. A number of states, counties and municipalities have introduced various types of bans, and have enforced them with varying degrees of rigour.

The problem with this, say Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, economists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, is that smoking bans seem to have been followed by an increase in drunk-driving and in fatal accidents involving alcohol. In research published in the Journal of Public Economics, the authors find evidence that smokers are driving farther to places where smoking in bars is allowed.

The researchers analysed data from 120 American counties, 20 of which had banned smoking. They found a smoking ban increased fatal alcohol-related car accidents by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people. This is the equivalent of 2.5 fatal accidents (equivalent to approximately six deaths). Furthermore, drunk-driving smokers have not changed their ways over time. In areas where the ban has been in place for longer than 18 months, the increased accident rate is 19%.

The findings, say the pair, are consistent with the suggestion that smokers are driving farther to alternative places to drink. This may be because they are driving to bars with outdoor seating, or to bars which are not enforcing the smoking ban.

Another explanation is that some smokers are “jurisdiction shopping” to places where they may puff. Accident rates can be especially high where border-hopping to still-smoky bars is possible. Accidents in Delaware county in Pennsylvania increased by 26% after the next-door state of Delaware introduced a smoking ban in 2002. Similarly, when Boulder county banned smoking, fatal accidents in Jefferson county, between Boulder county and Denver, went up by 40%. How this weighs up against the long-term health effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to well-meaning legislators.

[Shawn]

Man I'm tired of being "babysitted" by the government, can't they spend their time doing something useful...like working on the homeless issue or something?

They ban smoking...but cars are still legal and the emissions from car exhaust is far more harmful than cigarette smoke. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

"We're going to drink, we're going to drive...and we're going to fucking get away with it. Why? Because it's the only way to get our fucking cars back to the house!" - Sam Kinison

[BeBop]

I suppose I should have thrown this into the Politics area of the forum.

[Jazzmoose]

Well, it can always be moved if a vicious fight breaks out between the pro- and anti- drunk driving factions...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Throughout Europe, tobacco, cigar and cigarette packets all have to have big government health warnings of various kinds on them. A friend, when he's buying his ciggies, always asks them not to give him ones that say "Smoking kills" but ones that say that smokin while pregnant can harm your baby.

MG

[Royal Oak]

Throughout Europe, tobacco, cigar and cigarette packets all have to have big government health warnings of various kinds on them. A friend, when he's buying his ciggies, always asks them not to give him ones that say "Smoking kills" but ones that say that smokin while pregnant can harm your baby.

MG

I heard that joke on a Bill Hicks show - "Smoking causes low birth weight - fuck it! Found my brand!"

[kh1958]

Throughout Europe, tobacco, cigar and cigarette packets all have to have big government health warnings of various kinds on them. A friend, when he's buying his ciggies, always asks them not to give him ones that say "Smoking kills" but ones that say that smokin while pregnant can harm your baby.

MG

What the pack should say is "I'm stupid."

[porcy62]

Throughout Europe, tobacco, cigar and cigarette packets all have to have big government health warnings of various kinds on them. A friend, when he's buying his ciggies, always asks them not to give him ones that say "Smoking kills" but ones that say that smokin while pregnant can harm your baby.

MG

What the pack should say is "I'm stupid."

That it's written down on the t-shirt we wear when we buy cigarette. No harm, I see it only when I stumble into a mirror.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Throughout Europe, tobacco, cigar and cigarette packets all have to have big government health warnings of various kinds on them. A friend, when he's buying his ciggies, always asks them not to give him ones that say "Smoking kills" but ones that say that smokin while pregnant can harm your baby.

MG

What the pack should say is "I'm stupid."

That it's written down on the t-shirt we wear when we buy cigarette. No harm, I see it only when I stumble into a mirror.

Is it written backwards, like the word "Ambulance" on the front, so people can read it in their rear view mirrors?

MG

[kenny weir]

Here in Melbourne and elsewhere I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in house fires as a result of smoking bans in pubs and clubs. People who may have stayed on drinking AND smoking, stumbling home and straight into bed may now be boozing on at home.

[porcy62]

Throughout Europe, tobacco, cigar and cigarette packets all have to have big government health warnings of various kinds on them. A friend, when he's buying his ciggies, always asks them not to give him ones that say "Smoking kills" but ones that say that smokin while pregnant can harm your baby.

MG

What the pack should say is "I'm stupid."

That it's written down on the t-shirt we wear when we buy cigarette. No harm, I see it only when I stumble into a mirror.

Is it written backwards, like the word "Ambulance" on the front, so people can read it in their rear view mirrors?

MG

Exactly.

[Guy Berger]

Too bad... it would be interesting to apply these results to a cost-benefit analysis.

Personally, I dig going to bars without that shit making the air unbreathable.

Guy

[Jim Alfredson]

Personally, I dig going to bars without that shit making the air unbreathable.

And personally, I like playing in bars without that shit making the air unbreathable. And coming home smelling like somebody's ashtray (not to mention the smell of all my gear, and thus my vehicle, etc.)

[BruceH]

Man I'm tired of being "babysitted" by the government, can't they spend their time doing something useful...like working on the homeless issue or something?

They ban smoking...but cars are still legal and the emissions from car exhaust is far more harmful than cigarette smoke. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

"We're going to drink, we're going to drive...and we're going to fucking get away with it. Why? Because it's the only way to get our fucking cars back to the house!" - Sam Kinison

The answer: Cars that drive themselves.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Personally, I dig going to bars without that shit making the air unbreathable.

And personally, I like playing in bars without that shit making the air unbreathable. And coming home smelling like somebody's ashtray (not to mention the smell of all my gear, and thus my vehicle, etc.)

I can sympathise. I hate that atmosphere, too, and I'm a smoker!

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Too bad... it would be interesting to apply these results to a cost-benefit analysis.

The position in Britain is different from the US, because we have a health service funded by taxes, but a health economist told me some time back that tobacco taxes are so high in Britain (eg retail price of my tobacco is about three times as high as in Belgium) that smokers have paid for their treatment many times over by the time they need it.

To me, that negates the argument for legally imposed health warnings and bans. As a general rule, the law of unintended consequences bites hardest when governments most overtly try to manage people's behaviour. Leaving it to people to decide for themselves what risks they're prepared to put up with; to publicans, restaurateurs etc to decide whether they want to ban smoking or not; and so on, seems to be the route that is likely to have the fewest, and least dispersed in terms of the general population of innocent bystanders, unintended consequences.

MG

[mikeweil]

Personally, I dig going to bars without that shit making the air unbreathable.

And personally, I like playing in bars without that shit making the air unbreathable. And coming home smelling like somebody's ashtray (not to mention the smell of all my gear, and thus my vehicle, etc.)

My thoughts exactly!

That's the thing about any drug: At the core it's an entirely egoisticial thing, and you don't care for the effects on others, no matter what it is. And it always effects others.

[mikeweil]

Leaving it to people to decide for themselves what risks they're prepared to put up with; to publicans, restaurateurs etc to decide whether they want to ban smoking or not; and so on, seems to be the route that is likely to have the fewest, and least dispersed in terms of the general population of innocent bystanders, unintended consequences.

So far, so good - but why in all the world does someone still smoke when he knows about the consequences? I'll never understand that mindset.

And since the smoke effects other people than the one person smoking, I will follow you as far as personal responsibility to smoke is concerned, but not as far as allowing smoking in a pub or whereever. As soon as it effects other people, it's no longer a private affair. And I have yet to meet a smoker really caring for the effect the smoke he exhales has on others.

Why do people need this type of drug to relax etc., anyway? That makes it a political question. Masses of people functioning only with their daily dose of nicotine, alcohol, marihuana, sleeping pills, you name it.

[Niko]

Personally, I dig going to bars without that shit making the air unbreathable.

And personally, I like playing in bars without that shit making the air unbreathable. And coming home smelling like somebody's ashtray (not to mention the smell of all my gear, and thus my vehicle, etc.)

I can sympathise. I hate that atmosphere, too, and I'm a smoker!

MG

same here, happy about the smoking ban despite being a smoker (was however pissed to notice yesterday that the 10 squaremeter smoking area outside at the train station has been removed...)

(big thing in the newspaper here yesterday, "the first victim of the smoking ban", a 60 year old pub owner had hanged himself, claiming that with the smoking ban in force nobody came to his pub anymore)

[Shawn]

Why do people need this type of drug to relax etc., anyway? That makes it a political question. Masses of people functioning only with their daily dose of nicotine, alcohol, marihuana, sleeping pills, you name it.

Of course in my mind there's also those addicts out there running around who cannot function without their daily dose of doctor prescribed and perfectly legal items like Prozac, Zoloft, Valium, Vicodin, etc. We are the great "medicated" society, cannot watch TV for 2 hours without seeing at least 4 ads for prescription drugs, stuff to either keep your pecker sharp or calm down those damn "restless legs".

[porcy62]

Why do people need this type of drug to relax etc., anyway? That makes it a political question. Masses of people functioning only with their daily dose of nicotine, alcohol, marihuana, sleeping pills, you name it.

I presume it' s a rethoric question so I'll give you a rethoric answer.

Why does psychiatry exist? Why do people commit suicide? Why are depressed, psycotichc, maniac, obsessive people out there? Why do people kill other people? Why does people need to compare every remastered cd of the same title like Dracula's Curse forever and ever? Why do we spend huge amount of money on an original BN pressing? Why have we got such huge collection of music that we will never have enough time to fully appreciate?

The answer?

We are human being. A step beyond, or backward, big apes.

[Claude]

Man I'm tired of being "babysitted" by the government

I'm happy to be protected from passive smoking. That's what the anti-smoking laws are about. Nobody is prevented from smoking as much as he likes, just not in public areas where he harms others. So it's not "babysitting".

Edited April 9, 2008 by Claude

[Dan Gould]

Today, the city of Dallas has to look again at their ordinances

concerning local clubs because of a "loophole" that allowed a 12 year old

to dance naked in one of them here. So yet another appendage to a law...

Can you post a link? I was so astonished that this could happen I went to the Dallas Morning News site and didn't see anything on the front page or the Local News page.

[kh1958]

That's the short version of the article. Demonica is involved, appropriately enough.

Club where girl, 12, stripped will keep license

Place where girl, 12, danced can't be closed under city ordinance

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, March 27, 2008

By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News

teiserer@dallasnews.com

The mere fact that a 12-year-old girl danced nude at a northwest Dallas strip club isn't enough to close its doors.

That's because the city ordinance that regulates sexually oriented businesses does not allow authorities to revoke the license of such a business for employing someone under the age of 18.

The sixth-grader danced at Diamonds Cabaret over a two-week period late last year, authorities say. They also say they found a 17-year-old girl working in the club in January.

"If they're not shut down, it's like they're giving them permission to have underage girls dancing and working in that club," said the mother of the 12-year-old. The mother is not being named because her daughter, a runaway at the time of the incident, is considered a sexual assault victim.

Operators of the Diamonds Cabaret at 2444 Walnut Ridge St. did not return calls for comment. Their sexually oriented business license expires in November.

Demonica Abron, 27, who worked as a stripper in the club, and David Bell, 22, are facing charges in connection with the 12-year-old girl's dancing in the club. Mr. Bell does not appear to have been employed by the club.

Police officials are continuing to investigate whether the club's management knew the sixth-grader was underage.

The 23-page city ordinance does allow revocation of a club's license if, for example, the club knowingly allows prostitution, the sale or use of drugs at the club, or if there are two convictions for sex-related crimes at the club within a 12-month period.

The department also can suspend, but not revoke, the license of an escort agency for up to 30 days if it has employed anyone under 18.

But the ordinance does not give the department similar power over adult cabarets such as Diamonds Cabaret.

"There's a laundry list of things we can use to deny or revoke a license, but having a 12-year-old dancing in their establishment is not one of the things that automatically enables us to revoke their license," said Lt. Christina Smith, a vice unit commander who oversees licensing of such establishments.

The mother of the 12-year-old girl said her daughter ran away in early November. She said the family frantically began looking and her husband finally found their daughter in late November. She was then interviewed by police.

According to court records, the runaway gave the following account:

Mr. Bell and Ms. Abron, who went by the stage name "Jewels," offered the runaway shelter. Mr. Bell told her that she would be stripping at a club called "Diamonds."

Mr. Bell dropped them off at the club one day and Ms. Abron introduced her to a man named "David" in the club's office.

"Suspect David asked complainant if she had ever danced before, she said no," the court records state. "David" then gave her an application, which she filled out with a fake name. She also told him that she was 19.

When "David" asked to see her identification, she told him that she didn't have one. He told her to bring one when she came to work as a dancer.

"Complainant couldn't think of a fake birthday, so she told suspect 'David' she forgot her birthday," the records state. "Suspect 'David' gave her a funny look and told her she would have been born in 1988 if she was 19."

A couple of days later, Mr. Bell drove Ms. Abron and the victim back to the club, where Ms. Abron introduced her to a man named "Steve."

"Suspect 'Steve' told" the girl "to take her clothes off to see if she was too shy to dance nude," the records state. He told her she would have to pay a fee ranging from $10 to $30 each time she danced nude.

She danced that night and made about $100, of which she gave $30 to "Steve," the records state.

The court documents are unclear on how many nights she danced.

The mother of the 12-year-old says she believes the club must have known her daughter was underage.

"I think they just didn't care," her mother said. "She's 12, but she's got the body of a 20-year-old. All they were thinking about was the money she could bring in."

She said her daughter is now living with her grandmother in Arlington and again attending school.

Ms. Abron and Mr. Bell were indicted in late February on one count of felony sexual performance of the child in connection with making the 12-year-old work at the club. Both are also accused of engaging in organized crime.

Mr. Bell is accused of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and aggravated kidnapping. He is still being held in the Dallas County Jail in lieu of $450,000 bail.

Ms. Abron, who also faces a prostitution charge, has been released on bail from jail.

[Alexander]

As much as I dislike government interference,

it's, sadly, needed in order to protect us from ourselves.

Lack of respect, lack of common sense, etc...

Today, the city of Dallas has to look again at their ordinances

concerning local clubs because of a "loophole" that allowed a 12 year old

to dance naked in one of them here. So yet another appendage to a law...

R~~

I'm reminded of the "Simpsons" episode where Homer and Bart are watching Kent Brockmann talking about football on TV. Brockmann states that the only cure for "Football Fever" is to take two tickets to the big game. A hushed announcer voice quickly reads the disclaimer: "Tickets not to be taken internally."

Homer (to Bart): See? Because of me, they have a warning.