Smoking bans linked to increased alcohol-related accidents

[Publius]

Top Stories

Enacting city smoking bans appears to increase drunken driving, a study of arrests conducted by Wisconsin researchers asserts.

A national study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found an increase of fatal accidents involving alcohol after communities prohibited smoking, compared to arrests in communities without a ban.

The authors attribute that to people driving to places without a ban, and also to driving farther to find a place within a ban area that has an outdoor smoking accommodation, such as a patio.

"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 authors, Scott Adams of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Economics Department and Chad Cotti, currently at the University of South Carolina, call the results "surprising."

"We thought we would see a reduction," Adams said. "Our first thought was, 'Throw it away, it must be wrong.' "

However, Adams said the claim is backed up by the data.

The 2-year study looks at highway fatality data involving a driver with blood alcohol content over 0.08 in cities and counties with bans and compares it to incidences in surrounding areas without bans. The study was not funded by outside organizations, the authors said.

Results show an increase in accidents in areas after smoking bans were enacted and near the jurisdiction lines.

Smoke Free Wisconsin Executive Director Maureen Busalacchi said she was skeptical.

"People travel to a myriad of places," Busalacchi said today. "How would you possibly control all those factors?"

Busalacchi said she did not agree with linking accidents to the ban because people could be traveling to drink for different reasons than just to smoke at a bar.

"How in the world you would figure out where people are traveling unless you are interviewing them?" she asked.

Adams said the results were comparable nationwide, with the exception of New England, where there are many smoking bans.

The study, which used data from 2001 to 2005, did not look at counties in Wisconsin.

The state was probably ruled out, Adams said, because Appleton and its ban was too small an area and data collection started before Madison's 2005 smoke ban.

Although Adams said he is not necessarily a policy advocate, he said a well-enforced national smoking ban would get rid of the drunken driving increases related to smoke bans.

Busalacchi said Wisconsin is getting closer to becoming smoke-free by passing community laws.

"Clearly, for the health of our public, we need to do this on a statewide basis, and clearly communities are moving pretty quickly," Busalacchi said.

Fitchburg's smoking ban started April 1, Eau Claire's will start July 1 and Marshfield residents just approved a ban Tuesday.

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.

[Ardentfrost]

Man, shoulda seen this one coming.

Wait, I'm pretty sure we did

[6SpeedTA95]

Wow, good thread....


I feel that smoking bans in public places and bans at universities and places run by the government are just fine. I have a right to breath clean air. I am very allergic to cig smoke as a result I try to avoid it. Having to breath that air at school, universities or state/local/federal grounds is bullshit. So I am ok with ban's for those places.

When it comes to a restaurant, that should be left completely up to the owner of the business. I can always go someplace that does not allow smokers. Furthermore, smokers can always go to a place that allows them to smoke.

I also feel that if a business wants to offer BOTH smoking and non smoking sections then they must be SEPERATE sections that prevent the smoke from drifting into the smokeless areas of the business.

The federal government has no right to ban smoking nationwide. Again this is a preference of the business owners in the case of bars/clubs/eateries etc. But you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public and if you're going to smoke in your car keep your damn windows up.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Man, shoulda seen this one coming.

Wait, I'm pretty sure we did

Trying to legislate behavior usually leads to different (and often more destructive) behavior... I don't understand why people don't realize this.

[Thorgrim]

That's not a correct question because

1) People were already dying in large numbers of drunken driving...well since cars were popular
*Also note, there are no numbers, so we don't even know if this increase is of any significance
2) In towns that have banned smoking in bars, now NO ONE is dying of second hand smoke from bars

So I find your question to be invalid

[7960]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

When it comes to a restaurant, that should be left completely up to the owner of the business.

I also feel that if a business wants to offer BOTH smoking and non smoking sections then they must be SEPERATE sections that prevent the smoke from drifting into the smokeless areas of the business.

I don't understand. The owner can decide if it's smoking or non, but if he wants to offer both you apparently want some kind of laws/rules to govern it.........uhh, I'm confused. Why not leave it to the individual patron to say if the owner doesn't make his non-smoking section non-smoking enough then people won't go?

But you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public ....

Someone shouldn't have the right to walk down the sidewalk smoking a cigarette?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's not a correct question because

1) People were already dying in large numbers of drunken driving...well since cars were popular
*Also note, there are no numbers, so we don't even know if this increase is of any significance
2) In towns that have banned smoking in bars, now NO ONE is dying of second hand smoke from bars

So I find your question to be invalid

Show me a story with a headline like "Man kills 4 in smoking-related bar accident" and I'll think your second point is valid.

As for the first, I always like to look at numbers. But these stories rarely report them. We'll just have to wait for the actual report to drop.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's not a correct question because

1) People were already dying in large numbers of drunken driving...well since cars were popular
*Also note, there are no numbers, so we don't even know if this increase is of any significance
2) In towns that have banned smoking in bars, now NO ONE is dying of second hand smoke from bars

So I find your question to be invalid

People aren't getting smacked into by drunk drivers with much more regularity in those towns either, if you'd read the post. It's near the edge of the jurisdictions where drunk driving accidents/deaths have been on the increase by the largest amounts (again, according to the article about the study).

And my question isn't the point, the point is the study itself. It's linked an increase in drunk driving accidents to the smoking bans, so how do we resolve the issue while remaining within Constitutional bounds and without overburdening law enforcement officers (who I'm sure in many places are already overburdened enough)?

The only solution I can think of is not to legislate the behavior, and instead leave it up to establishment owners. If you don't like being around smokers, don't go to places that allow smokers. If you don't like being told not to smoke by a business owner, don't go to places that ban it. It's that simple.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Show me a story with a headline like "Man kills 4 in smoking-related bar accident" and I'll think your second point is valid.

As for the first, I always like to look at numbers. But these stories rarely report them. We'll just have to wait for the actual report to drop.

So now we're back to "second hand smoke doesn't kill!"

Which, along with evolution, ozone and global warming discussions, is well beyond anything I'm interested in "proving"

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So now we're back to "second hand smoke doesn't kill!"

Which, along with evolution, ozone and global warming discussions, is well beyond anything I'm interested in "proving"

That's not what he said. He basically said show him where second-hand smoke violently and immediately ends lives (which is what drunk driving accidents often do). Sure, secondhand smoke may kill over time (even though some studies saying this have been found to be inaccurate).

But I can guarantee you the likelihood of dying from second hand smoke inhalation is a lot lower than the likelihood of dying from a drunk driver's car crashing into your own.

The question boils down to, really, which is the greater danger to society? For my part, I'd say more drunk drivers traveling more miles on the road is more dangerous.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

People aren't getting smacked into by drunk drivers with much more regularity in those towns either, if you'd read the post. It's near the edge of the jurisdictions where drunk driving accidents/deaths have been on the increase by the largest amounts (again, according to the article about the study).

And my question isn't the point, the point is the study itself. It's linked an increase in drunk driving accidents to the smoking bans, so how do we resolve the issue while remaining within Constitutional bounds and without overburdening law enforcement officers (who I'm sure in many places are already overburdened enough)?

The only solution I can think of is not to legislate the behavior, and instead leave it up to establishment owners. If you don't like being around smokers, don't go to places that allow smokers. If you don't like being told not to smoke by a business owner, don't go to places that ban it. It's that simple.

People dying of second hand smoke has been an easy solution, and the benefits have been over-whelming and ever praised by libertarians on this board, let alone countless republicans and democrats I've spoken with...an all around home run

As far as drunk driving, it has always been a huge problem, and small increases and decreases always happen for a variety of reasons, I bet the recession will increase drunk driving

We have been working for decades on ways to decrease it, some have worked, some haven't, and we'll get it down as much as we can one day

[7960]

Originally Posted by Publius

The question boils down to, really, which is the greater danger to society? For my part, I'd say more drunk drivers traveling more miles on the road is more dangerous.

Especially when you're only exposed to 2nd hand smoke through your choice. I have no choice when it comes to a drunk crossing the line and hitting me head-on. I absolutely have a choice to not be exposed to smoke if I don't want to be.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

People dying of second hand smoke has been an easy solution, and the benefits have been over-whelming and ever praised by libertarians on this board, let alone countless republicans and democrats I've spoken with...an all around home run

As far as drunk driving, it has always been a huge problem, and small increases and decreases always happen for a variety of reasons, I bet the recession will increase drunk driving

We have been working for decades on ways to decrease it, some have worked, some haven't, and we'll get it down as much as we can one day

You act as if smokers are rounding up and holding down non-smokers and forcibly blowing smoke down their throats. If people are smoking and you don't want to be around it, go somewhere that doesn't have smokers. Problem solved.

I can guarantee you that in the absence of smoking bans there will be (and are, I speak from personal experience here) plenty of places that will ban smoking of their own accord because of the owner's opinion on the matter and/or recognition of an untapped market of disgruntled non-smokers tired of being stuck around smokers if they want to go out and have fun.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

That's not what he said. He basically said show him where second-hand smoke violently and immediately ends lives (which is what drunk driving accidents often do). Sure, secondhand smoke may kill over time (even though some studies saying this have been found to be inaccurate).

But I can guarantee you the likelihood of dying from second hand smoke inhalation is a lot lower than the likelihood of dying from a drunk driver's car crashing into your own.

The question boils down to, really, which is the greater danger to society? For my part, I'd say more drunk drivers traveling more miles on the road is more dangerous.

Flip your question...the chance of dying from lung cancer after a doctor has told you that you have terminal cancer is a lot higher than the chance of dying by driving on a city road when there is a person somewhere in the city drunk

[Publius]

I find it interesting that you accept a study freely if it supports your position Thorgrim (re: second hand smoke kills), but you meet a study that doesn't support your views with large amounts of skepticism and try to poo-poo the results.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

You act as if smokers are rounding up and holding down non-smokers and forcibly blowing smoke down their throats. If people are smoking and you don't want to be around it, go somewhere that doesn't have smokers. Problem solved.

I can guarantee you that in the absence of smoking bans there will be (and are, I speak from personal experience here) plenty of places that will ban smoking of their own accord because of the owner's opinion on the matter and/or recognition of an untapped market of disgruntled non-smokers tired of being stuck around smokers if they want to go out and have fun.

Again, this is tipping into "second hand smoke doesn't kill!" without actually saying those words

It puts me in the position where I have to ignore your post, or "prove" that second hand smoke was/is killing people

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Flip your question...the chance of dying from lung cancer after a doctor has told you that you have terminal cancer is a lot higher than the chance of dying by driving on a city road when there is a person somewhere in the city drunk

The chance of contracting lung cancer as a result of second hand smoke is significantly lower than the chance of being rammed into by a drunk driver.

The death rates bear out my statement, as far as I've seen there are only a few thousand people a year that die of a cancer which may or may not be directly linked to second hand smoke, whereas there were almost 17,000 drunk-driving related fatalities in the U.S. in 2005.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Wow, good thread....


I feel that smoking bans in public places and bans at universities and places run by the government are just fine. I have a right to breath clean air. I am very allergic to cig smoke as a result I try to avoid it. Having to breath that air at school, universities or state/local/federal grounds is bullshit. So I am ok with ban's for those places.

When it comes to a restaurant, that should be left completely up to the owner of the business. I can always go someplace that does not allow smokers. Furthermore, smokers can always go to a place that allows them to smoke.

I also feel that if a business wants to offer BOTH smoking and non smoking sections then they must be SEPERATE sections that prevent the smoke from drifting into the smokeless areas of the business.

The federal government has no right to ban smoking nationwide. Again this is a preference of the business owners in the case of bars/clubs/eateries etc. But you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public and if you're going to smoke in your car keep your damn windows up.

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."