Smoking bans, lead to increased drunk-driving accidents, fatalities

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
Here's a weird one. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Apparently when communities ban smoking in bars, restaurants etc., people who want to smoke as they drink (or have a drink with dinner etc.) drive a lot farther to find a place where they can. And when they drive home again, POW.

And another government effort to save us from ourselves, flops on its face.

-----------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347751,00.html

Study: Banning Smoking Increases Drunken Driving

Monday, April 07, 2008

MADISON — Enacting city smoking bans appears to increase drunken driving, according to a new national study of arrests by Wisconsin researchers.

Fatal accidents involving alcohol increased after communities banned public smoking, the study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found. The authors attributed the increase to people driving farther to drink, either to a place with an outdoor smoking area or a city without a ban.

“The increased miles driven by drivers who wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.

The researchers, Scott Adams, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, said they were surprised by the results.

“We thought we would see a reduction,” Adams said. “Our first thought was, ‘Throw it away, it must be wrong.’”

But it wasn’t, he said.

The study looks at highway fatalities from 2001 to 2005 involving at least one driver with blood alcohol content over 0.08. It compares those in cities and counties with bans to crashes in surrounding areas without bans. It found an increase in accidents after smoking bans were enacted, both in ban areas and near boundary lines.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Here's a weird one. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Apparently when communities ban smoking in bars, restaurants etc., people who want to smoke as they drink (or have a drink with dinner etc.) drive a lot farther to find a place where they can. And when they drive home again, POW.

And another government effort to save us from ourselves, flops on its face.

-----------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347751,00.html

Study: Banning Smoking Increases Drunken Driving

Monday, April 07, 2008

MADISON — Enacting city smoking bans appears to increase drunken driving, according to a new national study of arrests by Wisconsin researchers.

Fatal accidents involving alcohol increased after communities banned public smoking, the study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found. The authors attributed the increase to people driving farther to drink, either to a place with an outdoor smoking area or a city without a ban.

“The increased miles driven by drivers who wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.

The researchers, Scott Adams, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, said they were surprised by the results.

“We thought we would see a reduction,” Adams said. “Our first thought was, ‘Throw it away, it must be wrong.’”

But it wasn’t, he said.

The study looks at highway fatalities from 2001 to 2005 involving at least one driver with blood alcohol content over 0.08. It compares those in cities and counties with bans to crashes in surrounding areas without bans. It found an increase in accidents after smoking bans were enacted, both in ban areas and near boundary lines.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I just returned from stopping by Houlihan's with a friend from school. We used to frequent the establishment 1 or 2 times a week. Since IL went 'no smoking' 1/1/08, we haven't been there. As we had gone to the Jeweler's mart after school in Chicago, didn't hit the suburban restaurant until 5:45, it was empty. The bartender picked up our drinks, asked if we wanted another, "Sorry, it's late and too cold to go out and smoke, maybe in a few weeks." His reply, "If we're still here."

I wouldn't drive to Indiana or Wisconsin for dinner/drinks/smokes. I have my friends over and they reciprocate. We've adjusted, only 2 of us smoke, but the other 6 like our company, go figure. ;)
 
Well, both kinds of bans are bs, but I'm going to have to assume that this is a case of correlation. Granted, I didn't read the story before posting :)
 
People don't want to have their hair and clothes stinking to high heaven because they went out to dinner. Nor do they want to inhale poison.

Get used to it, because we're not going back. You'll either quit smoking and join the non-stinky people, or the world will wait for the rest of you to die off. But smoking is being phased out. And that's a very good thing.

Of course, typical republicans though -- a few drunken nicotine addicts get into accidents, and it's everybody's fault but the guy who got into the car drunk. The government made him do it. It's not his fault! You can't put him in jail!

Bleeding hearts.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Here's a weird one. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Apparently when communities ban smoking in bars, restaurants etc., people who want to smoke as they drink (or have a drink with dinner etc.) drive a lot farther to find a place where they can. And when they drive home again, POW.

And another government effort to save us from ourselves, flops on its face.

-----------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347751,00.html

Study: Banning Smoking Increases Drunken Driving

Monday, April 07, 2008

MADISON — Enacting city smoking bans appears to increase drunken driving, according to a new national study of arrests by Wisconsin researchers.

Fatal accidents involving alcohol increased after communities banned public smoking, the study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found. The authors attributed the increase to people driving farther to drink, either to a place with an outdoor smoking area or a city without a ban.

“The increased miles driven by drivers who wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.

The researchers, Scott Adams, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, said they were surprised by the results.

“We thought we would see a reduction,” Adams said. “Our first thought was, ‘Throw it away, it must be wrong.’”

But it wasn’t, he said.

The study looks at highway fatalities from 2001 to 2005 involving at least one driver with blood alcohol content over 0.08. It compares those in cities and counties with bans to crashes in surrounding areas without bans. It found an increase in accidents after smoking bans were enacted, both in ban areas and near boundary lines.
Click to expand...

....

They shouldn't be driving and drinking at all, no matter how far they have to go.
 
Darla said:
People don't want to have their hair and clothes stinking to high heaven because they went out to dinner. Nor do they want to inhale poison.

Get used to it, because we're not going back. You'll either quit smoking and join the non-stinky people, or the world will wait for the rest of you to die off. But smoking is being phased out. And that's a very good thing.

Of course, typical republicans though -- a few drunken nicotine addicts get into accidents, and it's everybody's fault but the guy who got into the car drunk. The government made him do it. It's not his fault! You can't put him in jail!

Bleeding hearts.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. Good thing those of us that don't want to over indulge, just have our friends in our homes. We are making the choice to smoke or not. They, (meaning the non-smokers) are making the choice to join us or not. Funny thing though, they don't leave our homes or ours theirs and go to restaurants, we're full. I can cook as good or better than most restaurants. So can most of my friends.

Much like the earlier 'smoking' and 'non-smoking', when they come to our homes, smoking is allowed, though neither of us would think of lighting up during a meal. At their homes, we ask where it's ok. In 3 of the homes, it's an area like an atrium, the other 3 a garage. We open the doors, though when it was cold the owners said, 'not necessary', but it is, to be polite. A wee bit of consideration.
 
Kathianne said:
You're probably right. Good thing those of us that don't want to over indulge, just have our friends in our homes. We are making the choice to smoke or not. They, (meaning the non-smokers) are making the choice to join us or not. Funny thing though, they don't leave our homes or ours theirs and go to restaurants, we're full. I can cook as good or better than most restaurants. So can most of my friends.

Much like the earlier 'smoking' and 'non-smoking', when they come to our homes, smoking is allowed, though neither of us would think of lighting up during a meal. At their homes, we ask where it's ok. In 3 of the homes, it's an area like an atrium, the other 3 a garage. We open the doors, though when it was cold the owners said, 'not necessary', but it is, to be polite. A wee bit of consideration.
Click to expand...

My aunt just died of lung cancer. She was diagnosed in early january, and died in february. Think about that.

I know what it's like, I quit several years ago and I've never done anything harder, and it took me two years before I could really say I had quit. But I didn't give up. It can be done.
 
No problem here as I have not been in a bar for probably 15 years.

I do not eat out much since they banned smoking in restaurants though.
 
Darla said:
People don't want to have their hair and clothes stinking to high heaven because they went out to dinner. Nor do they want to inhale poison.
Click to expand...

None of which has anything to do with most area smoking bans that people are driving long distances to get away from.

If you don't want to smell like smoke, then go to the nonsmoking restaurant over there. The smokers used to go to the one that still allowed smoking, a few blocks away. People had a choice.

But the anti-smoking thugs couldn't tolerate such a situation. They had to work to take away that choice and make sure EVERYONE did what the thugs wanted. They used laughable excuses such as "Even cig smoke outdoors is dangerous", plus the old standabys of "people will be better off, therefore it's OK for us to control them".

It's not about smoking. Never has been. It's about control. No wonder the leftist fanatics come down so heavily on the side of the thugs. Again.

BTW, I don't smoke, never have, never will. People I know who smoke, tell me it's a debilitating and expensive habit. Though I don't mind the smell of cig, cigar, or pipe smoke, I'm sold. But it's flat wrong for government to get involved as they have. Apparently they didn't learn their lesson from Prohibition. But then, Leftists have always had short attention spans and shorter memories.
 
Darla said:
My aunt just died of lung cancer. She was diagnosed in early january, and died in february. Think about that.

I know what it's like, I quit several years ago and I've never done anything harder, and it took me two years before I could really say I had quit. But I didn't give up. It can be done.
Click to expand...

I do know what you are speaking of and have first hand knowledge. Doesn't change the facts, but I'm not one to go to court over such. Rather just not bother with bars and restaurants, I've the means to avoid and do.
 
Little-Acorn said:
None of which has anything to do with most area smoking bans that people are driving long distances to get away from.

If you don't want to smell like smoke, then go to the nonsmoking restaurant over there. The smokers used to go to the one that still allowed smoking, a few blocks away. People had a choice.

But the anti-smoking thugs couldn't tolerate such a situation. They had to work to take away that choice and make sure EVERYONE did what the thugs wanted. They used laughable excuses such as "Even cig smoke outdoors is dangerous", plus the old standabys of "people will be better off, therefore it's OK for us to control them".

It's not about smoking. Never has been. It's about control. No wonder the leftist fanatics come down so heavily on the side of the thugs. Again.

BTW, I don't smoke, never have, never will. People I know who smoke, tell me it's a debilitating and expensive habit. Though I don't mind the smell of cig, cigar, or pipe smoke, I'm sold. But it's flat wrong for government to get involved as they have. Apparently they didn't learn their lesson from Prohibition. But then, Leftists have always had short attention spans and shorter memories.
Click to expand...


It is about smoking. Who are you to tell ME that I am the one who has to drive out of the way to avoid smoke-filled restaurants? I don't need to go out of my way so that someone can't pollute my breathing space. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Period.

And get used to it. As I said, we're not going back. Smokers are a dying breed, in more ways than one. Too bad.
 
Darla said:
People don't want to have their hair and clothes stinking to high heaven because they went out to dinner. Nor do they want to inhale poison.

Get used to it, because we're not going back. You'll either quit smoking and join the non-stinky people, or the world will wait for the rest of you to die off. But smoking is being phased out. And that's a very good thing.

Of course, typical republicans though -- a few drunken nicotine addicts get into accidents, and it's everybody's fault but the guy who got into the car drunk. The government made him do it. It's not his fault! You can't put him in jail!

Bleeding hearts.
Click to expand...

Smoking tends to appear more in the lower classes, as does the tendency to vote Democrat. It seems unlikely that smoking is something you can attribute to one party.
This is, of course, why I do not like either party. Democrats will attempt to tell me how to live my life just as much as Republicans. The only differences are the issues they want to dictate.
 
Darla said:
It is about smoking. Who are you to tell ME that I am the one who has to drive out of the way to avoid smoke-filled restaurants?
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate: who are you to tell THEM that they have to drive out of their way to avoid non-smokers?

Alcohol is a million times more deadly than smoking, both through drunk driving and liver failure.
 
Yep Alcohol is a big problem. It seems to cause immediate and tragic deaths. Does not seem to wait 50 years to cause ya cancer.
 
Ummm, am I supposed to feel bad for the drunk drivers because they can't find a place near by to smoke and make non smokers inhale their crap?
 
I am in favor of non-carbon dioxide bars while we are at it. I don't need to inhale your poisons while I eat. Your right to exhale ends when your exhalations reach my face. :)
 
I agree with the law, and am glad that we have it. If you smoke, you should quit because it makes you look old faster, you stink, and unless it’s your fate to die in an accident, it’s going to shorten your life span.

And since the law is not at risk, I really don’t want to get into long arguments over it.

(if you are driving drunk for ANY reason, it is YOUR fault, and you should go to jail)
 
uscitizen said:
Yep we are so inundated with various toxic agents and RF radiation , etc that it is pretty much impossible to determine what causes what.
Click to expand...

That’s true. Smoking causes heart disease too, not just cancer don’t forget. But you’re right…it’s pretty tough to avoid cancer in our current environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top