Bar Smoking Bans May Increase Drunken Driving

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by alaskaguy, Apr 7, 2008.

  1. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    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
     
  2. sodakjoe

    sodakjoe Well-Known Member

    Sep 15, 2006
    2,799
    119
    63
    Ames via Sioux Falls, SD
    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.
     
  3. jdoggivjc

    jdoggivjc Well-Known Member

    Sep 27, 2006
    40,463
    1,249
    113
    Sterling Heights, MI
    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.
     
  4. The_Architect

    The_Architect Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    12,527
    347
    83
    Focus Town
    Darwinism at it's finest...
     
  5. MaxPower57

    MaxPower57 Active Member

    Mar 30, 2006
    924
    55
    28
    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.
     
  6. scottie33

    scottie33 Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2006
    2,652
    61
    48
    Ames, Iowa
    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.
     
  7. jbhtexas

    jbhtexas Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    12,027
    480
    83
    Arlington, TX
    #7 jbhtexas, Apr 8, 2008
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2008
    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.
     
  8. scottie33

    scottie33 Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2006
    2,652
    61
    48
    Ames, Iowa
    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"
     
  9. MaxPower57

    MaxPower57 Active Member

    Mar 30, 2006
    924
    55
    28
    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.
     
  10. scottie33

    scottie33 Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2006
    2,652
    61
    48
    Ames, Iowa
    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?
     
  11. SpokaneCY

    SpokaneCY Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    5,905
    182
    63
    Manager of Natural Gas
    Spokane, WA
    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.
     
  12. scottie33

    scottie33 Well-Known Member

    Nov 25, 2006
    2,652
    61
    48
    Ames, Iowa
    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.
     
  13. Kyle

    Kyle Well-Known Member

    Mar 30, 2006
    4,075
    119
    63
    #13 Kyle, Apr 8, 2008
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2008
    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.
     
  14. Cutlass

    Cutlass Member

    Mar 23, 2006
    357
    6
    18
    Software Developer
    Omaha
    May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
     
  15. CyinCo

    CyinCo Well-Known Member

    Mar 24, 2006
    5,677
    133
    63
    Engineer
    Clive, IA
    Sounds to me like MILES of drunken driving might have increased. But drunken driving was going to happen either way.
     
  16. MaxPower57

    MaxPower57 Active Member

    Mar 30, 2006
    924
    55
    28
    I'm sorry I kind of opened up a can of worms on this issue. I can understand why a nonsmoker would not want to be flooded with smoke when they drink. I for one, enjoy smoking while drinking, but if I do smoke in the bars it'll be at the pool tables with my friends who either smoke or don't mind it.

    In the majority of smaller towns, which many here may be foreign too, smoking in the bars is really a non-issue that could have a negative impact on the business of 10-15 core regulars.

    Yet, I really don't care either way. The allure of the killing brain cells and poisoning the liver (just kidding) must be too strong for the nonsmoker to completely bypass the bars altogether yet I wouldn't have any problem just going outside to make the majority happy either. And always remember if she smokes, she pokes!
     
  17. jmb

    jmb Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2006
    8,570
    231
    63
    solution is pretty simple; if one is caught drinking and driving they are charged and tried with attempted murder. Enjoy your time in "Pound me in the A State Prision"
     
  18. Todd

    Todd Member

    Apr 10, 2006
    331
    9
    18
    Non-smoking, hyrdoponic, vegetarian Juice Bars (w/o dancers, noise pollution or anything else that might offend, inconvenience or entertain) are the only real answer here.

    Sounds like fun!
     
  19. CYdTracked

    CYdTracked Well-Known Member

    Mar 23, 2006
    10,007
    226
    63
    IT
    Grimes, IA
    Thats a stupid study. That's like saying there is less drunk driving if you eat before you go to the bar or take a pee before you leave or something. Bottom line is some people that go to the bars, smoking, not smoking, or whatever will wind up driving home drunk. There is no correlation at all, the only correlation is how much someone had before they leave the bar.
     
  20. alaskaguy

    alaskaguy Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    10,204
    217
    63
    The study concludes that drunks are likely to drive longer distances drunk when their are city bans against smoking. Due to the greater distances traveled there is a greater chance that they will be involved in an accident.
     

Share This Page