A rigorous statistical examination has found that smoking bans increase drunken-driving fatalities. One might expect that a ban on smoking in bars would deter some people from showing up, thereby reducing the number of people driving home drunk. But jurisdictions with smoking bans often border jurisdictions without bans, and some bars may skirt the ban, so that smokers can bypass the ban with extra driving. There is also a large overlap between the smoker and alcoholic populations, which would exacerbate the danger from extra driving. The authors estimate that smoking bans increase fatal drunken-driving accidents by about 13%, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county. Assuming a smoking ban is still worth it, the results suggest the need for a more aggressive approach to drunken driving - or a nationwide smoking ban.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/10/uncommon_knowledge/?page=1

2/25/2008 1:08:17 PM

I forget where I first read about this, but it's a wonderful example of the unintended consequences of government social policy.

2/25/2008 1:32:23 PM

^ am i detecting a return from leftist la-la land back to pragmatic libertarianism?

2/25/2008 1:41:49 PM

smoking IS healthier than fascism

2/25/2008 1:44:42 PM

theDuke, I've always been a passionate centrist. Though for about 6 years it's been hard to tell the difference between centrists and nut-bar socialists because we've all been saying the same thing--"Bush Sucks".

2/25/2008 2:00:09 PM

this is the stupidest reason to be against a ban. It would be valid if smoking bans in general were strictly municipality based, but the majority of bans are put in place on the State level.

2/25/2008 2:59:32 PM

I think city ordinance smoke bans espicially for places like the bar is ABSOLUTELY fucking retarted. You should expect cigarette smoke if you are at the bar. If you are offended, irritated, or if cigarette smoke makes your pussy dry up then DON't GO. This is not like an airplane, restaurant, or a movie theater and someone lights up. People go to a bar to relax drink, smoke, and hit on girls. This is not a family environment or a place where people have to go for other motives.

A bar is a private establishment and should be able to decide on its own rather or not to allow smoking. In a capitalistic society if enough people are that against smoking yet still want to go to a bar the opportunity and economic pressure is present for someone to open a "smoke-free" bar.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:03 PM. Reason : a]

2/25/2008 3:01:46 PM

make the smoking ban national. problem solved.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM. Reason : oops...i didnt read the last sentence of the original post.]

2/25/2008 3:02:30 PM

Quote :

"make the smoking ban national. problem solved."

how about [N0]

Quote :

"he results suggest the need for a more aggressive approach to drunken driving "

the punishment for drunk driving is already to harsh in a variety of circumstances in my opinion. I do agree with voluntary manslaughter for someone that kills a person driving drunk or hurting someone. Otherwise though I think it needs to be a more tiered system. The 0.08 cutoff is too arbitrary with to many variables. While a person with a 0.16 is definitely a hazard on the road i find it stupid that someone blowing a 0.08 is stuck with the same punishment $1000's in legal fees, loss of license, community service, social stigma as someone that blows a 0.2 and was probably incoherent at the traffic stop. Yet 0.07 is legal and a driver goes free. There must be a magical switch in my brain that makes me an evildoer to society when an extra 1/10,000th of my blood supply contains alcohol. As far as danger i would go as far to say that the soccer mom yapping on her cell phone barreling down the road in her yukon is just as much of a hazard as the 0.08 person.

I think a good tier would be

0.08-0.12- treat DUI like any other more stern traffic violation (i.e reckless driving, 30+ over)
0.13-0.16- Same consequences as a current DUI maybe a little more lenient if no body was hurt and no property damage
0.17-0.2- Get DUI charge and the current blowing 2x legal limit
>0.2- The judge should throw the book at them take their license for 3 years at a minimum

I've played with those at home breathalyzers and anyone who is 0.2 fucked up doesn't deserve to drive in my opinion.

[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 3:17 PM. Reason : a]

2/25/2008 3:08:10 PM

0.2 should require mandatory jail time.

2/25/2008 4:15:18 PM

Quote :

"smoking IS healthier than fascism"

wins



this kinda reminds me of the liquor-by-the-drink ban in boone (still exists?)

the southern baptists couldn't allow heathens to drink pure satan at bars,

so college students would have to wind down the ice-covered s-curves and hairpin-turns of hwy 194 to reach banner elk

to drink liquor

and then drive back



[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2008 4:16:26 PM

No, we have a better solution for drunk drivers: we incapacitate them.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124985.html

Quote :

"In the past, authorities had relied on license revocations to get drunks off the road. But here's a surprise: People who ignore laws against driving drunk also tend to ignore laws requiring them to have a valid license. For some, taking away their license had all the impact of confiscating their library card. So the legislature, prodded by Gov. Bill Richardson, imposed a tighter constraint on those convicted of DWI: requiring a device that keeps a car from being operated by someone who's been drinking. Other states have mandated ignition interlock devices for those with multiple convictions, but New Mexico was the first to order them for all first offenders upon conviction. The results were swift and sharp. Since the law took effect, the rate of drunk driving fatalities has dropped by nearly 20 percent. Nationally, by contrast, the rate actually rose slightly during that time. New Mexico DWI Czar Rachel O'Connor—that's her actual job title—notes that the state's campaign against drunk driving includes other steps as well, from a massive public-service ad campaign to intensive use of sobriety checkpoints. But the interlock rule has been a major factor in the improvement. Interlocks are the obvious solution. But so far, only four states have mandated them for all first offenders upon conviction. Even then, they're not an insuperable obstacle. Determined sots can hotwire their cars, borrow vehicles or have someone else—such as a child—blow untainted carbon dioxide into the devices. Another problem, says O'Connor, is that some offenders claim to have gotten rid of their cars, signing them over to friends or relatives but retaining surreptitious use of them. Still, the requirement does work to prevent a lot of impaired driving. And it puts no burden on taxpayers, since offenders bear the $1,000-a-year cost. It also has benefits for the culprits. In most states, the standard method for stopping drunk drivers is to revoke their licenses so they aren't allowed to drive at all. Under this policy, they may drive all they want as long as they're stone cold sober. It incapacitates the incorrigible while sparing the repentant. A canceled license, which lets the offender police his own conduct, does just the opposite."

2/25/2008 4:16:27 PM

Quote :

"o college students would have to wind down the ice-covered s-curves and hairpin-turns of hwy 194 to reach banner elk"

yeah my dad went to App and told me all about how the crazy christians in boone banned liquor in bars. All this did was increase student fatalities from driving drunk from places like Blowing Rock.

At least they kept that satanic jager shot out of Boone!!!

2/25/2008 5:18:02 PM

fo real

that jager is T3H DEVIL!!

2/25/2008 5:57:02 PM

Way to let bar owners decide what to do with their own property

2/25/2008 6:49:53 PM

you people are ridiculous.

because of a public health law (public smoking ban), the same people who make poor decisions to ruin their health in the first place, while polluting other people's environments, now are more inclined to make more poor decisions by driving drunk in search of another seedy bar that ignores the law and permits smoking.

therefore the public health law is at fault because it's forcing drunk smokers to tool around town in their '79 El Dorados looking for a place to stage their 12:45 am lessons in applied civil disobedience.

then to further underscore your argument, make vague points about the "right" to down Jaeger shots and shoot firearms

now see, this is why you libertarians will never get more than 5% of the vote.

2/25/2008 8:02:08 PM

the sad thing is, response to bad legislation is usually more restrictive versions of the bad legislation. that's why there are so many stupid regulations in this country that don't solve the problems they were supposed to solve. American freedom has been an empty slogan for a long time and it is getting emptier.

2/25/2008 8:40:16 PM

This is completely irrelevant to statewide bans.

2/25/2008 9:21:33 PM

Because no one lives near the border, right?

How far is it from Charlotte to South Carolina? Like a thousand miles or something?

Quote :

"because of a public health law (public smoking ban), the same people who make poor decisions to ruin their health in the first place, while polluting other people's environments, now are more inclined to make more poor decisions by driving drunk in search of another seedy bar that ignores the law and permits smoking."

The purpose of the law was, as you say, to defend public health. It had no purpose other than that. So, pointing out that the law is harming public health means the law now only has one possible purpose: to cause fatal car accidents, just as surely as if the legislature passed a law requiring the breaklights be removed from the cars of (insert minority here).

And when these drunks wreck they do not just kill themselves, just ask MADD.

2/25/2008 9:33:05 PM

Quote :

"you people are ridiculous. because of a public health law (public smoking ban), the same people who make poor decisions to ruin their health in the first place, while polluting other people's environments, now are more inclined to make more poor decisions by driving drunk in search of another seedy bar that ignores the law and permits smoking."

Are you intentionally being dense, or when someone like LoneSnark uses the term "unintended consequences," does this concept simply escape you?

Sure. A smoking ban should encourage a reduction in behaviors harmful to public health. And people shouldn't drive drunk. And therefore drunk driving shouldn't increase due to patchy application of the law.

Ah, Shouldland, where clean-cut kids cruise Shouldland Boulevard, and the Shouldland High football team gets their optimistic asses kicked by their cross-town rival, Reality Check Tech.

2/25/2008 10:19:25 PM

Let's get rid of all the laws. They can all be 6 degrees of Kevin Baconed back to some terrible unintended consequence.

2/25/2008 10:37:27 PM

Quote :

"now see, this is why you libertarians will never get more than 5% of the "

what exactly does this have to do w/ being a libertarian????

If you do not like the smokey bar then DON'T GO!!!!

or

patron a bar whose owner bans smoking in the interest of all the "sensitive" non-smoking people that want to drink

2/25/2008 10:43:06 PM

Quote :

"Are you intentionally being dense, or when someone like LoneSnark uses the term "unintended consequences," does this concept simply escape you? Sure. A smoking ban should encourage a reduction in behaviors harmful to public health. And people shouldn't drive drunk. And therefore drunk driving shouldn't increase due to patchy application of the law. Ah, Shouldland, where clean-cut kids cruise Shouldland Boulevard, and the Shouldland High football team gets their optimistic asses kicked by their cross-town rival, Reality Check Tech."

I think joeschmoe was upset that it seemed you all were feeling that it was justified for these people to drive drunk, because it's a reasonable compromise for not being able to smoke, which is pretty absurd. In their illegal attempt to break one law, they also end up breaking another law, but it's okay, because the first law was soooo bad.

But somehow, the illegal immigrant who comes here for a better life for his family is a dangerous felon, and we need to strengthen the laws against him with harsher penalties.

2/25/2008 11:41:31 PM

Quote :

"I think joeschmoe was upset that it seemed you all were feeling that it was justified for these people to drive drunk, because it's a reasonable compromise for not being able to smoke, which is pretty absurd. In their illegal attempt to break one law, they also end up breaking another law, but it's okay, because the first law was soooo bad."

Perhaps I'm not reading closely enough, but I didn't pick up this at all. Driving impaired is bad. But it's a documented fact that, due to patchy enforcement, an incentive exists for smokers to drive further, and thus be more likely to be driving intoxicated, under the current law.

LoneSnark himself pointed out the solutions - ditch the ban, make it more uniform, or more strictly enforce DUI laws. But the undeniable fact remains - a law intended to protect public health has the unintended consequence of encouraging socially destructive behavior. Which means you can either act like JoeSchmoe and others and bury your head in the sand while yelling about those "crazy libertarians!", or actually deal with the fact that in life, sometimes unintended consequences happen and must be dealt with.

2/25/2008 11:46:15 PM

^ Of the solutions though, which do you think this thread was created to support? Enhancing the laws, or ditching the laws? And when placed in the context of the statements of this thread, would it not seem like certain people were implicitly supporting drunk driving as a means to bypass a law?

2/25/2008 11:49:14 PM

Moron, to the best of my knowledge no one here would ever suggest "driving drunk" as a rational response to a law, much less a smoking ban.

And as the individual which created this thread, ditching the law makes since because it is not doing what it was supposed to do: protect public health. Americans as they are today make this law more harmful then helpful, so repeal it. Keeping it on the books out of spite, as JoeSchmoe has suggested, is irrational and needlessly kills innocent people.

That said, enhancing the DUI laws is always a good idea, regardless of what is happening on the smoking-ban front. Like I mentioned above, "requiring a device that keeps a car from being operated by someone who's been drinking" to be installed on all vehicled owned by drunk drivers is a great idea in my book. It will still be a great idea even if all smoking bans are either lifted or made universal.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/26/2008 12:02:39 AM

Quote :

"Of the solutions though, which do you think this thread was created to support? Enhancing the laws, or ditching the laws? And when placed in the context of the statements of this thread, would it not seem like certain people were implicitly supporting drunk driving as a means to bypass a law?"

Again, I honestly do not know where you're picking up the subtext that some individuals feel driving intoxicated is a justified measure to bypass this law. Perhaps I'm not reading it the same way you're reading it, but I'm just not picking that up at all. I think there's plenty of people in here that think the ban is a dumb law, but I honestly would find it a stretch to believe anyone advocates putting others on the road in immediate danger just to circumvent it.

That being said, I don't think one has to be sympathetic to the notion of smoking bans to point out that they are created with the goal of public health in mind, yet on the balance when the unintended consequences are factored in, they become a net negative - in their current state. Just because someone takes the position of repealing the offending law doesn't automatically void their analysis that the law indeed has an unintended consequence.

Again - LoneSnark himself points out that one could just as easily pursue better means of stopping repeat DUI offenders, or more comprehensive bans. While I'm fairly sure he would take the position that I do that these smoking bans are a dumb way to improve public health and the easy solution is to simply get rid of them, it's not the only option on the table. And any of these options is better than pulling a JoeSchmoe and sticking your head in the sand.

2/26/2008 12:05:41 AM

Dr. Steve and Lonesnark, did you go to college? or did you just wind up hanging out on these boards because you like the crowd here.

i ask, because certainly you aren't seriously suggesting that we need to stop inconveniencing drunks so they wont drive around wasted as much, and therefore kill less people?

maybe we should start selling liquor by the shot at every corner 7-11 and Burger King. that way no one will ever have haul ass to the ABC store at 7:55 pm on a Saturday evening and run over some grandma in the crosswalk.

tell me, how many other laws should we get rid of because they make life difficult for drunk drivers?

2/26/2008 1:15:54 AM

2/26/2008 1:39:54 AM

Quote :

"make the smoking ban national. problem solved."

effing smokers

2/26/2008 2:28:24 AM

Quote :

"Dr. Steve and Lonesnark, did you go to college? or did you just wind up hanging out on these boards because you like the crowd here. i ask, because certainly you aren't seriously suggesting that we need to stop inconveniencing drunks so they wont drive around wasted as much, and therefore kill less people? maybe we should start selling liquor by the shot at every corner 7-11 and Burger King. that way no one will ever have haul ass to the ABC store at 7:55 pm on a Saturday evening and run over some grandma in the crosswalk. tell me, how many other laws should we get rid of because they make life difficult for drunk drivers?"

You can't seriously be this stupid.

Oh wait, you can. Because you actually got that from my post.

I really don't give a crap about "inconveniencing" drunk drivers. What I care about are outcomes. Do outcomes not matter to you, Joe? (Obviously, not.) If a negative outcome is to encourage more bad behavior, maybe it would be wise to understand what is encouraging those outcomes to occur.

For instance, maybe if you had some basic literacy skills, you might have picked up that part where LoneSnark or I proposed several alternatives, including more uniform application of the law, better enforcement of DUI laws, or so forth.

But hey - laws never have unintended consequences in the land of JoeSchmoe! That's why policy always works out exactly as we plan with no negative side effects! (And when things do encourage undesired, unexpected behaviors, we'll just ignore it!) Oh how wonderful it is to live in a world where actions have no consequences whatsoever!

2/26/2008 7:11:42 AM

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 9:15 AM. Reason : [dbl]]

2/26/2008 9:15:19 AM

Chaos, no one is that dense. JoeSchmoe is trolling.

2/26/2008 9:15:19 AM

What are you guys even arguing?

This is such a massive non issue that I'm half tempted to hijack the thread and argue why the decline of pirates over the last 200 years has led directly to global warming.

2/26/2008 10:25:56 AM

HOW ABOUT IF YOU DO NOT LIKE CIGARETTE SMOKE THAN DO NOT GO TO THE FUCKING BAR. No one is making you take tequila shots next to the car smoking down like a factory. Go drink at home instead of whining like a pussy to the city council in an effort to go them to lockdown on a bar patrons right to smoke up.

2/26/2008 10:30:32 AM

Thats a retarded argument.

Smoking is bad for you, but if you want to do it thats fine.

However, when your "im doing this because im a huge tool and I think it makes me attractive to that skank hoe across the bar" antics start blowing that shit in my face

Then we have a problem

At which point I pool together other stonelife nigs like myself who believe the same

And legislate you to the fucking trash bin outside.

Democracy in action.

And if you don't like that, then you can piss off. And move to cuba.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason : >.<]

2/26/2008 10:33:16 AM

Quote :

"Because no one lives near the border, right? How far is it from Charlotte to South Carolina? Like a thousand miles or something? "

So much for local control. Federalism FTL.

2/26/2008 10:39:37 AM

^^ i do not even fucking smoke. however, people smoke at most bars so i make a conscious choice to be in the smoke if i want to go out. So i suck it up and take it as part of being at the bar; kinda like having that whiny screaming 2 yr old at the table next to me is part of going to a place like golden corral.

This is completly forgetting that a bar is a private establishment so why should the government be able to tell them they people can not smoke at THEIR bar.

2/26/2008 10:44:47 AM

No, your initial argument in this thread only criticizes municipal smoking bans. You are saying smoking bans should be in place statewide or nowhere, and we agree with you.

2/26/2008 11:14:16 AM

This thread has gone on longer than I intended. My first post went ahead and gave out all the possible responses to this situation, since no one has given any new ones, other than JoeSchmoe and a few which said we should do nothing.

So, SandSanta, how about those pirates?

2/26/2008 12:18:22 PM

Well clearly there's a linear relationship as there are less pirates today then there were before yet its actually .01 degrees hotter then 200 years ago.

I mean, I was at the beach in miami and nobody tried to make me walk a plank so clearly..

2/26/2008 12:49:18 PM

Quote :

"I think city ordinance smoke bans espicially for places like the bar is ABSOLUTELY fucking retarted. You should expect cigarette smoke if you are at the bar. If you are offended, irritated, or if cigarette smoke makes your pussy dry up then DON't GO. This is not like an airplane, restaurant, or a movie theater and someone lights up. People go to a bar to relax drink, smoke, and hit on girls. This is not a family environment or a place where people have to go for other motives. A bar is a private establishment and should be able to decide on its own rather or not to allow smoking. In a capitalistic society if enough people are that against smoking yet still want to go to a bar the opportunity and economic pressure is present for someone to open a "smoke-free" bar"

Fuck that. No smoking in bars is the shit, and not a single person that's visited me in NYC has disagreed, even the smokers. Nobody wants to smell like shit just b/c they were at a bar.

2/26/2008 1:45:32 PM

Well, first we need create a system to judge the sum of the poor health effects of the deaths and other injuries of those in the fatal accidents. The deaths and injuries of the drunk drivers themselves will count zero in our sum.

Then we should take a look at the good health effects of the no-smoking bars.

Compare the two reliably (which is impossible) for a solid conclusion.

And then I might give a shit about some pop economics.

2/26/2008 1:58:15 PM

Quote :

"Fuck that. No smoking in bars is the shit, and not a single person that's visited me in NYC has disagreed, even the smokers. Nobody wants to smell like shit just b/c they were at a bar."

Then one must wonder why the bar owners did not go ahead and ban smoking long ago. Any ideas?

2/26/2008 2:28:16 PM

^Because smokers are smokers. They like smoking in bars.

But, when the ban was forced on them, they realized that it wasn't the worst thing in the world and that, in some ways, they appreciated the ban.

Although it should be noted that those people who visited probably had smoking bars back where they were from, and their appreciation for the no-smoking bars may have been boosted by the novelty aspect and the knowledge that they could return to smoking bars once they got home.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM. Reason : What heV said.]

2/26/2008 2:34:18 PM

because free markets are often scalar forces, not vectors. when it comes to "quality of life" and "being civil", it often takes a regulatory framework to make the initial investment. it takes laws to provide direction, and free markets to find the most efficient operational case within those laws.

2/26/2008 2:35:32 PM

Quote :

"But, when the ban was forced on them, they realized that it wasn't the worst thing in the world and that, in some ways, they appreciated the ban."

I know a few bar owners/operators who started looking for legal ways to remain smoking as soon as word of the possible ban came out.

if the demand of non-smoking bars is great enough in any given area, bar owners will voluntarily go to non smoking...they like making money ya know.

imo, it's not even about smoking, i just don't like the gov making personal decisions for citizens/businesses.

2/26/2008 2:48:47 PM

^imo, it's about not subjecting the service class to undue health hazards.

2/26/2008 2:52:37 PM

The restaurant industry has pushed hard for a statewide ban. When one location acts on their own, they risk becoming "the place that smokers can't go." This is the same reason that bans can hurt business when enacted by a municipality. Unilateral disarmament does not work. When a ban is all-inclusive, it helps business.

2/26/2008 2:56:30 PM

^or coal miners to iron lung. If its that much a concern go do another job.

2/26/2008 2:57:41 PM