PARIS (AFP) - A ban on smoking in American bars has caused the number of accidents from drunken driving to surge, researchers have discovered.
US jurisdictions with a smoking ban have seen, on average, a nearly 12-percent rise in the number of drink-related accidents at the wheel, they say in a study released on Wednesday.
Instead of heading to their local bar for a drink and a smoke, smokers venture farther afield in search of a place where lighting up is still allowed, they say.
The smokers may not be drinking more than before but they are certainly driving more -- and this is what is increasing the risk of a smash.
"Banning smoking in bars increases the fatal accident risk posed by drunk drivers," the study says.
"Our evidence is consistent with two mechanisms -- smokers searching for alternative locations to drink within a locality and smokers driving to nearby jurisdictions that allow smoking in bars."
The ban is spreading across the United States, but in a piecemeal fashion. According figures cited in the report, nearly a one-third of the US population lives in cities, counties or states where there are restrictions.
Study authors Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, of the University of Wisconsin, say that the increase in drunk driving has to be weighed against "potential positive health impacts" from smoking bans, and this may take years to determine.
Their paper appears in the Journal of Public Economics. It is based on analysis of data from 2000 to 2005, drawn from counties that enforced a ban during this period and from accident statistics before and after the ban was introduced.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080402/oddities/health_smoking_tobacco_ac...
I fear that this is another case of research interpretting statistics based on a a pre-held premise. One might consider it to have some value in locales that border smoking allowed states, but it seems quite a stretch to draw a general conclusion from it. For example, it would take 2+ hours to get from Columbus, OH to a place where it's legal to smoke. I rather doubt that this is what is occuring.
Our only hope here is that this was not a government study (though I fear that it is), and that taxpayer money was wasted on such nonsense.
But many people DO travel that far away for a night out (so they can drink & smoke). Most choose places closer to the border, but I can see where people might sometimes, make the longer trip (longer trip home after drinking equals more drunk drivers on the road). My daughter & her friends (within 15 minutes from a bar in Michigan) would go to bars on weekends that were very close to home so they could take a taxi home without breaking the bank. But then, the bar closest, closed because it couldn't compete with the Mi.bars across the border. During winter, it was too damned cold to smoke outside at the others. So now & then, they will make the longer drive to Michigan bars - but it's too expensive to get a taxi home from Mi. So while they've always been very good about not drinking & driving, now they do - or have a designated driver (who I'm sure still has a couple of beers). End result - more drinkers on the road. The logic that a smoking ban in an entire state that may result in more drunk drivers on the road - makes perfect sense, and something I'm sure the smoking ban pushers hadn't considered or cared about.
Um...I doubt if the 'study' cost any of US anything...it was a European study
(France)
I know a lot of people who go to other states on weekends, myself, Star. More of the law of unintended consequences. But, then, it was never about 'the public health' to begin with.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh, Bother!" Said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.
You get into a drunk driving accident it's because you got drunk and drove. YOU made the CHOICE to do that.
I totally disagree with the smoking ban and think it's unconstitutional, but smoking bans DO NOT cause people to get DUI's because these people would still drink and get drunk no matter if they were at the local pub or had to drive across the line to do so.
You can get into a drunk driving incident right around the corner just as easily as you can miles away.
The smoking ban CAN be accused of causing many problems - loss of business, loss of jobs, etc, but you cannot point your fingers to the smoking ban for every single problem, because it's just not the case.
Sounds to me like this is just another "it's not my fault I'm a stupid drunk and I just killed someone" way to try and divert the blame from themselves.
It's not my fault I was driving drunk its the smoking ban's fault.
Cry me a river.
Have to go to Michigan so you can have a smoke with your beer?
Last time I checked designated drivers, and taxi's weren't against the law in Michigan.
If you drive drunk, you're the idiot.
All
by
yourself.
All the non smokers promised they would all "flock" to the non smoking bars and that the bars would "thrive". This proves that everything they say is absolute truth. They are coming in droves across the state line to drink at the non smoking bars.
interesting observation. :)