[alaskaguy]

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.

Link:
local

[sodakjoe]

Wait...they did the study in Wisconsin? I wonder if they tested UW-Madison. Party central. I'm pretty sure drunk driving arrests are not a function of smoking, regardless.

[jdoggivjc]

One of the first things they stress in statistics classes is correlation does NOT mean causation. Too often statisticians forget this rule. That's how the two sayings about statistics came into being:

1. Statisticians can make statistics mean anything they want them to.

2. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[The_Architect]

Darwinism at it's finest...

[MaxPower57]

It makes some sense, some people need to take off their college glasses and see things on a smaller level. A bar in a town of 3000 has like 15 regulars, all smoke. They are told they can't smoke there so they go to another honkytonk type bar 10 miles away where they can. Enacting smoking bans on bars in Ames, IC, CR, etc wouldn't hurt the bars revenue drastically, but a smoking ban could put these smaller establishments in smaller towns out of business.

[scottie33]

56% of all statistics are made up...or so Hooters says so.

The thing I question about this is whether you drive 5 miles to your local bar that you always hang out at that has a smoking ban or you drive 10 miles to one that doesn't have a smoking ban...the bottom line is your going to be driving under the influence either way whether it's 5 miles or 10 miles. It's still illegal to drive drunk. I agree you have more of a chance to get in a wreck or get pulled over driving 10 miles over 5 miles.

[jbhtexas]

The root cause of drunken driving accidents is people who drink to the point of impairment, and then go driving. Until our society decides to deal with the root cause, drunken driving accidents will continue to be a thorn in our collective side, smoking ban or no smoking ban.

If these professors want to study something, they should be studying why people are routinely willing to impair themselves with a drug to the point that 1) results in very unpleasant physical after-effects, and 2) results in them becoming a substantial hazard to other members of society.

[scottie33]

Originally Posted by MaxPower57

It makes some sense, some people need to take off their college glasses and see things on a smaller level. A bar in a town of 3000 has like 15 regulars, all smoke. They are told they can't smoke there so they go to another honkytonk type bar 10 miles away where they can. Enacting smoking bans on bars in Ames, IC, CR, etc wouldn't hurt the bars revenue drastically, but a smoking ban could put these smaller establishments in smaller towns out of business.

I think there has been talk on a different thread about this same "establishments will go out of business" if a smoking ban is passed. But it has been passed in a number of states, and I think someone else mentioned that owners haven't seen a decrease in business but an increase in business.

Again, people don't go to a bar to just smoke. People go to a bar to drink and have a good time. I haven't heard anyone say "well I'm going to go to Mickey's so I can smoke some cigarettes"

[MaxPower57]

Agreed drunk driving is no good no matter the distance yet I'm thinking of my hometown in the thick of Eastern Iowa...most of the people that go to the bar here are people that live in the town only a couple blocks away. Over spring break I went bar hoppin in Monticello, which is pretty much just walking from bar to bar and home. Everyone smoked, which I have no problem with, but you do get treated like a second class citizen if you sport an ISU hat inside.

[scottie33]

Originally Posted by MaxPower57

Agreed drunk driving is no good no matter the distance yet I'm thinking of my hometown in the thick of Eastern Iowa...most of the people that go to the bar here are people that live in the town only a couple blocks away. Over spring break I went bar hoppin in Monticello, which is pretty much just walking from bar to bar and home. Everyone smoked, which I have no problem with, but you do get treated like a second class citizen if you sport an ISU hat inside.

How does this back up that establishments are going to lose all their business if a smoking ban is passed? It's not that hard to get up and go smoke outside...or is it?

[SpokaneCY]

Originally Posted by scottie33

I think there has been talk on a different thread about this same "establishments will go out of business" if a smoking ban is passed. But it has been passed in a number of states, and I think someone else mentioned that owners haven't seen a decrease in business but an increase in business.

Again, people don't go to a bar to just smoke. People go to a bar to drink and have a good time. I haven't heard anyone say "well I'm going to go to Mickey's so I can smoke some cigarettes"

Smoking ban has been effect here in WA for quite some time. Bars are still full, restaurants are still full, bowling alleys are still full, my clothes smell fresh and my throat no longer hurts after a night out.

As for statistics - there is a direct coorelation between the number of pirates and global warming. In the 1800s there were many pirates and little or no global warming. Now we have much much fewer pirates and global warming seems to be the accepted mantra. Easy solution - we need more pirates.

[scottie33]

Originally Posted by SpokaneCY

Smoking ban has been effect here in WA for quite some time. Bars are still full, restaurants are still full, bowling alleys are still full, my clothes smell fresh and my throat no longer hurts after a night out.

As for statistics - there is a direct coorelation between the number of pirates and global warming. In the 1800s there were many pirates and little or no global warming. Now we have much much fewer pirates and global warming seems to be the accepted mantra. Easy solution - we need more pirates.

I love the feeling of getting home and not smelling like *** and my throat doesn't hurt from the smoke.

As for the pirates, I can see the correlation. Arrrrrr, very good point. I'm dropping out of school and going to make up my own pirate crew. As long as I can get on CycloneFanatic I will be happy. but if they have a smoking ban on pirate ships, my idea is going to go down the pisser.

[Kyle]

The results of this study do make some sense, but would primarily apply to localized smoking bans. If the state wide ban gets passed that problem is solved for the most part, because the only place to then drive to is another state.

[Edit] I went back and noticed the outdoor accommodations part, but the general point of a state level ban addressing this problem better than local bans still makes sense.

[Cutlass]

Originally Posted by SpokaneCY

As for statistics - there is a direct coorelation between the number of pirates and global warming. In the 1800s there were many pirates and little or no global warming. Now we have much much fewer pirates and global warming seems to be the accepted mantra. Easy solution - we need more pirates.

May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

[CyinCo]

Sounds to me like MILES of drunken driving might have increased. But drunken driving was going to happen either way.