Smoking bans linked to increased alcohol-related accidents

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's not "a study" it's a series of studies for many years by all the top minds in medicine that have come as close to being solid proof as any objective person could want

Your study says the ban has caused some sort of increase in drunken driving...sure I'll accept that...so i haven't "poo poo"ed anything

However I am sure you and several others have "poo poo"ed countless studies by the top minds in medicine

I've repeatedly stated that I don't know or care what effect second hand smoke has on people, the fact that the studies say it can cause cancer in people doesn't change the fact that no one is being forced to inhale second hand smoke. If they don't want to, they can go somewhere else. Likewise, if a smoker doesn't want to be told not to smoke in certain establishments, they can go somewhere else.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

The post doesn't even come close to that suggestion. You're just choosing to ignore it because you have no real answer to it. Allow me to repeat that post in plain english for you:

Smokers don't force non-smokers to inhale second hand smoke. Non-smokers are free to go to places that don't have smoking, which exist in many areas regardless of the fact that there aren't smoking bans in plenty of those same areas.

There is also no right to drive...people are free to take dirt trails to work and work outside urban areas...therefor no car accidents

So really, there is no need to "ban" drunken driving, there is nothing in the constitution that gives me the right to drive, and there is no absolute need to drive

[Donkey®]

Forget equating second hand smoke to drunk driving accidents...this study is complete nonsense to begin with. There is absolutely no science involved and how exactly they equate "more drunk driving accidents" to "hey, it's smokers driving to smoker bars" is pretty much "omg, this coincidence can be manipulated to match this coincidence!!!! We R da scienzes!!!"

Let's hear all about the personal responsibility people need to have. A drunk driver is a drunk driver. Period. Regardless of reasoning behind him/her driving to begin with...they are still a drunk driver. If the smoker bar was 5 minutes away they would STILL be a drunk driver.

Ridiculous study.

[Ardentfrost]

I skipped a lot of posts... but I read enough to want to say this:

"Second hand smoke kills" has little to do with one situation where someone chose to drink and drive and smashes into the car of an innocent family who in no way had anything to do with the drunk driver at all, and another situation where a bunch of people choose to patronize a bar or restaurant where they know smoking is allowed.

No one CHOOSES to drive on the same road as a drunk driver, but anyone who goes to a restaurant that allows smoking is making a choice.

HUGE difference.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I skipped a lot of posts... but I read enough to want to say this:

"Second hand smoke kills" has little to do with one situation where someone chose to drink and drive and smashes into the car of an innocent family who in no way had anything to do with the drunk driver at all, and another situation where a bunch of people choose to patronize a bar or restaurant where they know smoking is allowed.

No one CHOOSES to drive on the same road as a drunk driver, but anyone who goes to a restaurant that allows smoking is making a choice.

HUGE difference.

Ofcourse they do, my parents often told me "just stay over your friends, it's 2am the bars are closing, lots of drunk drivers out there" sometimes i chose to stay at my friends, sometimes i CHOSE to drive home

I do not see the way to view driving as a situation that involves no choice

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by 7960

I keep re-reading this and laughing..............the post seems to scream "The govt shouldn't be legislating this stuff!!" but then the bold parts whisper "but I don't like smoking so I'm ok with it."

I made myself pretty clear. The government shouldn't regulate a business and tell them they have to be smoking or non smoking. I'm not ok with them telling business what they can and can't do. But if a business is going to do both they need to be seperate. The federal government has no business regulating that, but the state and especially local governments most definately can.

[illavbill]

In my city, Tacoma, WA we arne't alowed to smoke inside bars/restaraunts/public buildings. BUT you are alowed to smoke outside on the sidewalk 20 feet away from the doors/open windows. The ban hasnt had any effect on my favorite bars which require very little driving drunk to get home from . I smoke ALOT when i'm drinking but cigarette smoke bothers my eye allergies so I'm LOVING the ban when i'm inside. Durring the winter i smoke WAY less when out drinking tho.

I'm not sure what the laws in the states in the study were but like I said there was ZERO drop in regulars who do/dont smoke at the bars i frequent. Actually had more people comin in that wouldn't regularly because the air is clear inside.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by illavbill

In my city, Tacoma, WA we arne't alowed to smoke inside bars/restaraunts/public buildings. BUT you are alowed to smoke outside on the sidewalk 20 feet away from the doors/open windows. The ban hasnt had any effect on my favorite bars which require very little driving drunk to get home from . I smoke ALOT when i'm drinking but cigarette smoke bothers my eye allergies so I'm LOVING the ban when i'm inside. Durring the winter i smoke WAY less when out drinking tho.

I'm not sure what the laws in the states in the study were but like I said there was ZERO drop in regulars who do/dont smoke at the bars i frequent. Actually had more people comin in that wouldn't regularly because the air is clear inside.

I definately spent more time in bars when they went smoke free. Prior to that I owuldn't hang out in bars with friends, once a few smoke free bars popped up and a few others went smoke free they got a lot more of my money. I know others that do the same thing.

Ironically the smokers still tend to show up, they just dont smoke.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I made myself pretty clear.

Yes, "But you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public" is very clear. You're saying if you had your way smoking would only be allowed on private property.

The government shouldn't regulate a business and tell them they have to be smoking or non smoking. I'm not ok with them telling business what they can and can't do. But if a business is going to do both they need to be seperate. The federal government has no business regulating that, but the state and especially local governments most definately can.

But why? If they're allowed to have a smoking section then why can't they just say the bar is smoking and leave it at that? Why would there be regulations around having a smoking and a non-smoking section? I don't get it.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes, "But you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public" is very clear. You're saying if you had your way smoking would only be allowed on private property.


But why? If they're allowed to have a smoking section then why can't they just say the bar is smoking and leave it at that? Why would there be regulations around having a smoking and a non-smoking section? I don't get it.

Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, if I go to the park with my wife or to a government building smoking shouldn't be allowed because it directly violates my right to breath air not polluted with their cig smoke.


The regulatiosn around smoking/non smoking sections again should be handled on a local level. The reasoning is simple. Prior to our county passing a law I could go into a place that had smoking and non smoking sections but there was NO seperation in these sections. It was simply a table designation so I could be sitting right next to someone who's smoking. That is NOT a no smoking section, that means i had a no smoking table but still had to put up with the smoking of others who were not isolated or seperated by a reasonable distance.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head once again. Banning people from smoking in bars leads to an increase in vehicular accidents involving alcohol according to the study, so I guess the question becomes would you rather potentially die slowly from second-hand smoke, or die in a crash with a drunk driver trying to go smoke elsewhere?

As for the suggestion by Scott Adams that we should have a well-enforced nationwide smoking ban, that's just idiotic. Not only is it far beyond the scope of the Federal government's Constitutional authority, but enforcement would cost far more than any state or local police force can afford, and would tie up far too many jail cells and officers.

Comparing one community that has the ban to one that doesn't to find a correlation is silly - first of all communities are different in demos, life style and entertainment options. If you live in a town that is dead at 10 then of course you will drive with your buddies to the next one over to keep on partying regardless of a ban.

How then, do they isolate those kind of variables out of it to find the person who drives "extra miles" just to smoke?

This quote underscores how dubious their claim is -

"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.

Bullshit - I live in NY and there is a city wide ban on smoking, yet I see TONS of people outside puffing away, then going inside and having a shot of vodka. People who are willing to drive drunk will do it regardless of a smoking ban - this is an issue of responsibility or lack thereof.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, if I go to the park with my wife or to a government building smoking shouldn't be allowed because it directly violates my right to breath air not polluted with their cig smoke.

Peanuts shouldn't be allowed in public, if I go to the park with my wife or to a government building peanuts shouldn't be allowed because it directly violates my son's right to breath air not polluted with their peanut dust.

And while cig smoke bothers you, peanut dust can kill my son. So no more peanuts in public.

Ok?

Prior to our county passing a law I could go into a place that had smoking and non smoking sections but there was NO seperation in these sections. It was simply a table designation so I could be sitting right next to someone who's smoking. That is NOT a no smoking section, that means i had a no smoking table but still had to put up with the smoking of others who were not isolated or seperated by a reasonable distance.

This is totally confusing me. You think the restaurant owner should be allowed to have a smoking area and you say the patrons should decide if they'll go or not, but then you say if he has a no-smoking area then the state should step in and regulate it.

Why not allow patrons to regulate it, and if you're at a no-smoking table next to a smoking table, get up and leave? Why have the state regulate something when earlier you said patrons should regulate it themselves?

Let me change some wording to see if i can make my point.

Bar owners should be allowed to choose if customers can get nude. So if customers want to get nude they can, or they can wear clothes, it's up to them. But if a bar owner wants to have a "no nudity" section then the state should come in and regulate how nude/no-nude people are divided.... why not just have the "no nudity" people regulate it with their pocketbooks? If the bar owner doesn't do a good job separating the two then the no-nude people can leave and he'll lose business.

It's kind of silly to say he can have his whole bar be smoking if he wants, but if he chooses to separate one section for no-smoking that then the state should come in and enforce it. It's optional. So if you don't like how he implemented it, leave..........like you've been saying all along.

[hsmith]

Good post.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by 7960

Peanuts shouldn't be allowed in public, if I go to the park with my wife or to a government building peanuts shouldn't be allowed because it directly violates my son's right to breath air not polluted with their peanut dust.

And while cig smoke bothers you, peanut dust can kill my son. So no more peanuts in public.

Ok?

This is totally confusing me. You think the restaurant owner should be allowed to have a smoking area and you say the patrons should decide if they'll go or not, but then you say if he has a no-smoking area then the state should step in and regulate it.

Why not allow patrons to regulate it, and if you're at a no-smoking table next to a smoking table, get up and leave? Why have the state regulate something when earlier you said patrons should regulate it themselves?

Let me change some wording to see if i can make my point.

Bar owners should be allowed to choose if customers can get nude. So if customers want to get nude they can, or they can wear clothes, it's up to them. But if a bar owner wants to have a "no nudity" section then the state should come in and regulate how nude/no-nude people are divided.... why not just have the "no nudity" people regulate it with their pocketbooks? If the bar owner doesn't do a good job separating the two then the no-nude people can leave and he'll lose business.

It's kind of silly to say he can have his whole bar be smoking if he wants, but if he chooses to separate one section for no-smoking that then the state should come in and enforce it. It's optional. So if you don't like how he implemented it, leave..........like you've been saying all along.

I'm saying if he has both a smoking and no smoking section then they should be seperate. Thats what I'm saying.


As for leaving if I dont like the implementation I have and do leave if someone is smoking and it was supposed to be a non smoking environment.



BTW this isn't a big issue for me and I haven't given it a lot of thought until now, but you're making some excellent points. I see what you're saying with regard to regulation of smoking/no smoking sections. Your POV honestly seems to make more sense to me than mine at this point with regard to the government stepping in.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Your POV honestly seems to make more sense to me than mine at this point with regard to the government stepping in.

wow, thanks.

it just seems that it should be regulated or not......some sort of quasi-regulation, and only if the bar owner makes a specific choice, is going to be hard to implement.