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

[rostasi]

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~~

[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.

[rostasi]

The link makes you sign up,

so I've reprinted it here:

Dallas seeks to tighten sexual business rules after case of 12-year-old stripper

Case of 12-year-old dancer prompts call for ordinance change

Dallas city officials are looking into ways to revise an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses after it was reported that employing someone under the age of 18 isn't enough to shut down a strip club.

WFAA-TV and The Dallas Morning News reported the existence of the loophole this week after it came to light that a 12-year-old girl had danced nude at a northwest Dallas strip club.

"We have to protect the safety of minors," Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia said Thursday. "Who would have thought that we would find a 12-year-old in one of those places?"

City attorneys are exploring ways to revise the ordinance and will report back to the City Council.

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

Operators of the Diamonds Cabaret at 2444 Walnut Ridge St. have not returned 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.

According to court documents, the 12-year-old told club employees that she was 19, but couldn't give them identification and didn't know what year she was born if she were that age. Still, she was allowed to dance in the club, records show.

The 23-page city ordinance allows the 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 city also can suspend, but not revoke, the license of an escort agency for up to 30 days if it has employed anyone younger than 18. But the ordinance does not give the city similar power over adult cabarets such as Diamonds Cabaret.