Story Created:
May 22, 2008
Story Updated:
May 22, 2008
Maybe, says a new study of the latest example of the law of unintended consequences.
ScienceDaily (May 21, 2008) — A ban on cigarette smoking in bars is meant to save lives by reducing patrons’ exposure to secondhand smoke. But it may actually be having an unintended consequence, according to a study done at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM).
By comparing data from a variety of locations around the United States where laws requiring smoke-free bars exist with locations without bans, economists Scott Adams and Chad Cotti found a relative increase in fatalities caused by drunk driving following ban enactment.
The results of their study appear in the June issue of the Journal of Public Economics and have also been reported in the May issue of The Economist.
While the results at first seemed surprising to Adams, a UWM assistant professor of economics, and Cotti, now at the University of South Carolina, literature on consumer behavior suggests an explanation: Smokers are willing to drive longer distances to an establishment that allows smoking.
“Like they would to buy fireworks, lotto tickets or, in some cases, alcohol, people will often go to a neighboring jurisdiction that doesn’t have a ban,” says Adams. The number of smokers willing to drive extra distances offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, he adds.
Friday, May 23 at 4:51 PM BigT wrote ...
I understand you Holly. Not long fter I quit I became BigT.
Friday, May 23 at 2:09 PM Jamie in Hartland wrote ...
I hear ya Holly, and even with cigs at $5 a pack it would be cheaper for me to smoke while drinking instead of doubling my drinking.I know it would be better just to quit both. I tried quitting cigs in January but I found in order to I had to quit drinking as well. Then after a few months I went to a bar with friends and had a drink. Then I decided to have a smoke.So I decided to only smoke when I drink.I then found myself going to bars just so I could smoke. So I quit quitting and it's saving $
Friday, May 23 at 1:41 PM Holly wrote ...
Here's another angle... I quit smoking 4 months ago. Now, when I do drink, I really tend to go overboard because I subconciously continue the hand to mouth repetition by replacing taking a drag off my cigarette with taking a drink off my bottle. It doesn't take long to find a substitute for cigarettes when you know you can't have one. The same holds true for quitters gaining weight by over eating where hand to mouth with a cigarette is replaced by food.
Friday, May 23 at 1:38 PM Jamie in Hartland wrote ...
As a smoker and a frequent bar patron I would gladly wlecome a complete smoking ban in indoor bars. When I have a drink in one hand I usually have a smoke in the other and to tell you the truth I have a worse hangover the next day due to the chain smoking. This article is right on the money though. But like some of the comments here suggest it is the DUI idiots who are to blame not the law. Don't worry if Obama is prez he will ban smoking everywhere..wait he is a smoker too....
Thursday, May 22 at 8:33 PM BigT wrote ...
When I was growing up the drinking age in Wisconsin was 18 and Illinois was 21. 18 to 20 year olds from Illinois would drive up to drink in Wisconsin then drive home. Some of them didn't make it home. The consensus was that having the higher limit in Illinois was causing deaths and the age limit was lowered. The same thinking holds true here. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Thursday, May 22 at 4:27 PM Aaron J wrote ...
The responsibility lies with the people who drove while intoxicated. This is just a pathetic argument to deter other states from enacting smoking bans. I suppose it is not their fault that they are addicted to cigarettes too? Smoking should not be allowed in public because it KILLS people. It is not a matter of personal choice or freedom, but of public health. I see people die nearly every day from the consequences of smoking and taxpayers often are left to pay the bill after they've died.
Thursday, May 22 at 4:10 PM Chris wrote ...
2:46, you're spot on. What a false corrolation to say that the smoking bans themselves are to blame for deaths. The title "Do smoking bans?" is so misleading that it's comical! You cannot be serious!?!
Thursday, May 22 at 2:46 PM Joe wrote ...
Wouldn't a more reasonable conclusion be to blame the idiots that drive after drinking?
Thursday, May 22 at 11:29 AM Dan wrote ...
But the liberals don't care. It is perception that they care rather than facts that get that get in the way of the perception. In reality, does this study really surprise you?
Thursday, May 22 at 11:27 AM Amy P. wrote ...
Not only will liberals want a blanket ban on smoking now, they'll go after our alcohol next! I agree with you, Charlie - smoking is a disgusting habit. But it is *still* a legal activity, and businesses should have the right to market and serve who they think will best benefit their business.
Add a comment
Most Popular