Posted on 07/31/2008 10:27:22 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
In recent years, state and local governments across the United States have passed measures to outlaw smoking in bars, says the American. The public health rationale is simple: to protect bar patrons and employees from exposure to secondhand smoke.
But according to economists Scott Adams of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad Cotti of the University of South Carolina, smoking bans have had some unintended and deadly consequences. Specifically, they have led to an increase in drunk-driving fatalities.
The economists studied a variety of municipalities that passed smoking bans. According to their research:
The passage of the bans led to a significant increase in the danger posed by drunk drivers. Fatal accidents involving a drunk driver increase by about 13 percent; this is approximately 2.5 fatal accidents a year for a typical county. The evidence is consistent with two mechanisms -- smokers searching for alternative locations to drink and smokers driving to nearby jurisdictions that allow smoking in bars, say Adams and Cotti.
Adams says smoking bans should still be supported, because the health benefits still outweigh the health costs. Cotti recommends that smoke-free communities increase DUI enforcement measures to provide drivers with appropriate disincentives.
Source: "Smoke and (Broken) Mirrors," The American, July/August 2008; based upon: Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, "The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment," University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/university of South Carolina, 2007.
For study:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/bep/eapcon/v7y2007i1p1628-1628.html
For more on Regulatory Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=38
Ping!
what about people that don’t smoke, and now sit at the bar longer because they aren’t being bothered by the smoke?
They're far outweighed by those who no longer patronize the bars at all because some nanny-state ninny decided to butt (no pun intended) into an area that was no concern at all of theirs to begin with.
L
ping
How about if we Blame the the actual Drunk Drivers that get behind the wheel and kill?
You have to follow this through to the logical conclusion: that smoking causes drunk driving fatalities.
Only a gov't bureaucrat could look at a direct correlation that has extreme negative consquences, and say "Yup, I'm still right."
Dude, that’s crazy talk.
Nanny State PING.
That appears to be exactly what the author of the study is saying.
or how about we blame the idiot judges that let multiple offenders back on the street?
and the idiots that keep lowering BAC limits to net more DUIs and gain more profits from fines, just to let the people back out the next day?
Land of the free... my a$$. Property owners should be the ONLY people making decisions about what legal substances are used on their premises. Non-smokers (of which I am one), should find alternate places to spend their money if they feel their lives are endangered by smoke.
The Drunk Drivers are 100% at Fault.
Unless you are a Nanny State Advocate and then you can excuse the Drunk Driver.
Thanks for the ping!
Au contraire. The obvious conclusion would be that smoking bans cause d d fatalities. But as for logic, well that never enters into these things.
When they lower the limit to .03, it means you better not use mouthwash. You could be legally drunk.
In another look at it, people can no longer walk to the neighborhood bar to enjoy a drink and a smoke. This doesn't excuse them getting drunk and driving, but what used to be a skinned knee and a bump on the head for the walker is now a major traffic incident.
Unintended consequences of bad laws.
If I were King of the World the BAC limit would be raised to .12 and punishment would be graduated upwards depending on BAC.
Thus a person with .12 would get a ticket and a person with .20 would do time in the slammer.
But blaming smoking bans for an increase in DWI deaths in nuts.
What next, are we going to blame developers who build houses way out in the suburbs? After all, if I live way out in the suburbs I have to drive 30 miles to get home after a night of drinking. If I live in town, I can just walk a few blocks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.