If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Open ForumsThe Open forum was created for people to discuss anything else Non-Moto related. Just about anything goes! Please remember this is a loosely moderated area. If you do not have thick skin. We suggest you stay out of here.
Increase In Drunk Driving Fatalities Followed Ban On Smoking In Bars
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2008) — A ban on cigarette smoking in bars is meant to save lives by reducing patrons’ exposure to secondhand smoke. But it may actually be having an unintended consequence, according to a study done at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM).
By comparing data from a variety of locations around the United States where laws requiring smoke-free bars exist with locations without bans, economists Scott Adams and Chad Cotti found a relative increase in fatalities caused by drunk driving following ban enactment.
The results of their study appear in the June issue of the Journal of Public Economics and have also been reported in the May issue of The Economist.
While the results at first seemed surprising to Adams, a UWM assistant professor of economics, and Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, literature on consumer behavior suggests an explanation: Smokers are willing to drive longer distances to an establishment that allows smoking.
“Like they would to buy fireworks, lotto tickets or, in some cases, alcohol, people will often go to a neighboring jurisdiction that doesn’t have a ban,” says Adams. The number of smokers willing to drive extra distances offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, he adds.
Using fatalities as a gauge in the study is more accurate than using data on DUIs, since drunk-driving laws are not uniformly enforced, he says.
The study’s evidence suggests that consumers are driving longer distances to smoke and drink, but this does not exclude other potential explanations.
“We can’t rule out the explanation that smoking bans might reduce the propensity to drink in moderation,” Adams says, “But in each and every instance of ‘border shopping’ we found, the increase in fatalities was true.”
The study is the second on the topic of smoking bans for the pair of economists. The first study focused on whether smoking bans have an effect on bar employment. Results from that study showed that restaurants were helped by smoking bans, especially in warmer climates and in warmer months. But bar employment fell.
They then decided to examine the effect of the bans on drunk driving, says Adams. “The thinking was that the bans might have additional health benefits if there’s a reduction in driving associated with it.”
It still appears that the positive health effects of smoking bans outweigh the negative, he says, but the real conclusion is that a universal smoking ban would eliminate the danger of people trying to avoid the individual bans.
Twenty states have universal bans, and Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed one for Wisconsin.
Adams and Cotti have begun a new study to see if smoke-free bars are associated with evidence of a reduction in heart disease. Preliminary evidence strongly suggests it does.
“I view economics very much as a social science – the costs associated with people’s behavior,” says Adams, who specializes in health and labor economics. “Public economists are concerned with the externalities and whether what affects you also has an impact on others – without those costs being accounted for.”
Nicotine is a stimulant that improves driving performance and counteracts the effect of excessive alcohol consumption, and possibly reduces craving for alcohol consumption. Responsible alcohol consumption improves driving performance, since alcohol is a stimulant in moderation.
Smoking is certainly expensive, and reduces the amount of money that a customer can afford to spend on alcohol. The average smoke addict spends $50,000 to $100,000 on tobacco cigarettes in their lifetime. That would buy a LOT of alcohol. Thus smoking reduces alcohol consumption based on cost.
Quote:
"There's a report out tonight that 24-years ago I was apprehended in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a DUI. That's an accurate story. I'm not proud of that. I oftentimes said that years ago I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much and I did on that night. I was pulled over. I admitted to the policeman that I had been drinking. I paid a fine. And I regret that it happened. But it did. I've learned my lesson."
—President George W. Bush, CNN Larry King Live, November 2, 2000, Transcript
"The MAINTAIN TOP SAFE SPEED sign may be used on highways where conditions are such that it is prudent to evacuate or traverse an area as quickly as possible."
—USDOT, FHA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Chapter 2I. Emergency Management Signing, 2003 Ed
Last edited by dealsgapdragon : 05-22-2008 at 11:50 AM.
Now there's an unintended consequence for ya. But it seems transitional. When every place bans smoking (which I don't support) the incentive to drive far goes away.
Ya, if someone has to smoke bad enough to drive drunk and kill themselves, that's fine with me. Its sad if they take an innocent with them, but at 3am I'm sure its a pretty slim chance. If a few have to go so many can breathe cleaner air, I'm ok with that. I'd rather not be smoking 50 other peoples' cigarettes at once while I drink. No reason to fuck up my lungs because of someone else's habit. Everyone gets all offended when someone next to them farts, but smoking is ok. I say ban it in WI.
__________________
A pile of shit has a thousand eyes.
Last edited by clockworkjon : 05-22-2008 at 12:22 PM.
^At the moment, that's all the bars. I'm kind of on the soap box today. I haven't actually gone to hang out at a bar (except when in a restaurant waiting for a table) in a long time, since my wife is pregnant now. But even before if we went to a bar the smoke made her sick to her stomach. It would just be nice to go out for a drink without the haze. Just my $.02
__________________
A pile of shit has a thousand eyes.
^At the moment, that's all the bars. I'm kind of on the soap box today. I haven't actually gone to hang out at a bar (except when in a restaurant waiting for a table) in a long time, since my wife is pregnant now. But even before if we went to a bar the smoke made her sick to her stomach. It would just be nice to go out for a drink without the haze. Just my $.02
There's a few bars locally that are smoke free, or don't allow smoking before 10PM. The businesses that do this are still profitable - and are actually more profitable than a lot of places.
I think this approach works much better than passing laws.
And the typical attitude: "It still appears that the positive health effects of smoking bans outweigh the negative, he says, but the real conclusion is that a universal smoking ban would eliminate the danger of people trying to avoid the individual bans." Yeah, obviously if a regulation intended to force people into a behavior they don't want has unintended consequences from people avoiding the regulation, the right answer is more regulations. .
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
Smoking bans result in higher drunk driving fatality rates.
.
Linear Mode
