Smoking bans lead to … increased drunk driving?
posted at 6:20 pm on June 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Two researchers at the University of Wisconsin have concluded that smoking bans cause more drunk driving. Scott Adams and Chad Cotti published their findings through the Journal of Public Economics this month, although it appears to have been available on the Science Direct website since January of this year. When smokers want a drink, they drive farther to find a place to do so rather than give up either of their predilections:
Using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations — smokers driving longer distances to a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks.
I oppose smoking bans on the basis of private-property rights. If a bar or restaurant owner wants to serve smokers, the government shouldn’t interfere in that transaction, since neither are doing anything illegal. Customers who want a smoke-free environment can vote with their feet.
The proponents of these bans argue that they improve public health and safety, but as with all attempts to impose government restrictions on markets, this has its own strange and consequential twists. Ban-backers claim that employees that get exposed to second-hand smoke risk their lives for low-paying jobs — as if anyone forced them to work at a bar or restaurant — but Adams and Cotti provide evidence that the bans put the entire community at greater risk. I’d say a drunk driver on the road represents a greater risk than breathing cigarette smoke.
King Banaian notes that those who assumed that smokers would just stay home got it wrong. Some of them turn to the stage instead. At least it’s not as deadly as a drunk driver.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The Boeing company will soon have a policy whereby no smoking will be allowed on site, none, not even in designated areas, whith no exceptions for chewing tobacco, cigars, pipes, etc. No smoking. Period.
Entelechy on June 18, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Government should take “first do no harm” as its basis of action.
mred on June 18, 2008 at 6:35 PM
So can employees, the other pawn in the benevolent government takeover game.
whitetop on June 18, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Let’s see another Democrat idea that’s causing more trouble than it’s worth.
Let’s lift the restriction on smoking advertising and reap all the tax money we will get. We’ll need it to pay for Obamas new spending.
originalpechanga on June 18, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Rob Reiner sez:
“Fear-monger! Don’t you know the adverse affects of smoking? Now excuse me while I eat 4 triple burgers.”
Seriously though, isn’t there some kind of rule about unintended consequences or something? Maybe even a law?
VolMagic on June 18, 2008 at 6:36 PM
They’re a private concern. People who don’t want to work there because of this can leave. With the Gov’t everyone is force to comply.
mred on June 18, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Oh, it’ll be coming to a city near you soon enough. Bloomberg has effectively made NYC a major “food police zone”, as well as a no-smoking room.
JetBoy on June 18, 2008 at 6:41 PM
more government control over our lives. Univ. of Wisconsin might just have the highest per capita communists of any Univ. other than Bezerkely.
kirkill on June 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Food Police Zone?
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Yeah, with the banning of tran-fats in restaurants, banning schools from having soda or “junk food” in vending machines, etc.
JetBoy on June 18, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Nearly always agree with you Ed. Nearly. Only a smoker could make those arguments with a straight face….
ElectricPhase on June 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I was wondering what they called that! Thanks for the def.
upinak on June 18, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Enjoy paying for their welfare instead.
Darth Executor on June 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM
My city (Elkhart, IN) just passed a smoking ban that includes restaurants,even if they have an outdoor patio. Bars got a one year reprieve if they don’t qualify as a restaurant. It has already caused an increase in business for the bars/restaurants in the county areas outside the city. In their wisdom, they excluded golf courses and their clubhouses. Money talks?
Tbird1107 on June 18, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Twinkies are worse than cigarettes.
infidel on June 18, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Of course any proposed solutions to the problems caused by fascism will be more fascism.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
As a smoker I find this study interesting. I certainly have changed the places I visit because of smoking bans. However I hardly ever drink so the bar thing is not an issue with me and they still allow smoking in bars here in MO. I am not opposed to the laws we have regarding smoking here now, I can live with it, but no smoking in bars is just ridiculous.
kahall on June 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I thought this was going to be along the lines of people getting less intoxicated because smoking somehow slowed their drinking down.
I know that dipping between beers slows me down … although there are a few hardcore dippers who drink and dip at the same time.
BowHuntingTexas on June 18, 2008 at 7:34 PM
The health Nazis will be the death of freedom. I agree with Ed whole heartily, forcing smoking bans on private business is destruction of property rights anyway you look at it. The business owner should be allowed to decide depending on what the majority of his customers want.
And if it’s mixed, a separate smoking area works just fine.
Lots of people have no sympathy for smokers, but they need to realize the health Nazis will come for them next. Are you a little overweight? Just wait, soon your company will be sending representatives to look in your refrigerator to make sure you are eating healthy.
Do you like to hunt or is woodworking your hobby. Well we can’t have any of that, don’t you know people get hurt doing those types of things and it drives up your companies health care cost.
You name it, whatever it is, it can be taken from you once individual rights are ignored and collectivism is substituted. Smokers are the ones on the front line for individual life choices, once they fall, you will be next.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 8:00 PM
If we apply the same approach to drugs, across the spectrum of drugs as we are doing with cigarettes, then we’d be much better off.
mylegsareswollen on June 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM
how’s this for a slogan to fuel a movement:
‘their rights now, your rights next.’
the sad thing, lots of so called conservatives must have voted for these statewide smoking bans. be careful what you think is right.
jimmer on June 18, 2008 at 8:05 PM
First they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the fat people
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fat person.
Then they came for those who did not exercise
and I did not speak out
because I exercised everyday.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
My apologies to: Pastor Martin Niemöller
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I think Scott Adams should stick to Dilbert.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 18, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Maxx,
I don’t care if you pig out on McDonald’s while carving decoy with one hand and aiming a shotgun with the other from your duck blind. I understand your domino theory argument. I even sympathize with it a little in an impractical, cloistered, ivory tower kind of way. However, a separate smoking area doesn’t work just fine. Finally, at age 41, I can enjoy live music without feeling sick for a week afterward. “Vote with my feet” as Ed suggested? Until recently there were no alternatives within walking, driving or flying distance. Sometimes real life must intrude on ideology, and I believe this is one of those times.
ElectricPhase on June 18, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Of course the personal responsibility crowd completely ignores the fact that the cause of this problem is not anti-smoking laws, but idiots who are too selfish not to drive drunk! Ponder the irony while you light up a Camel.
B26354 on June 18, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Then they can wear masks on the job if they are concerned. We do have people who work in coal mines, right? They wouldn’t consider this, however, because everyone knows how stupid they would look wearing a mask to protect themselves from cigarette smoke, and lefties can’t stand being laughed at.
So, instead, the rest of us lose our fundamental rights and the foundational concepts of America are tossed out the window.
progressoverpeace on June 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Then why didn’t you open your own business instead of intruding in someone else’s?
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 8:31 PM
I understand that some people become ill around cigarette smoke and I sympathize with that. But what I am saying about ultimate control over every aspect of your life is no less valid. You might be happy now that you can sit in a bar and not be bothered by cigarettes, but trust me, the restrictions will NOT stop there. This is only the beginning.
Do you drink coffee? That will have to go, causes high blood pressure. Do you like sweets? Sorry, that rots your teeth and drives up medical cost. Do you like to drive on weekends and visit family or friends. Well, that is not necessary and automobile accidents make up a huge part of medical expenses.
Collectivism is what you invite, and I think you are going to have your wish. Once you have the government up your butt on every detail of your life I think you might decide the smoke wasn’t so bad after all.
Don’t forget to make it to your mandatory health screenings, the consequences might be no healthcare at all. Ah yes, brave new world, it always starts this way doesn’t it?
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Dude.
I believe I’d be going to a doctor if second-hand cigarette smoke made me sick for a week.
hillbillyjim on June 18, 2008 at 8:42 PM
I kinda like the way Florida implemented their law. Basically, if an establishment derives less than 10% of their revenue from food, they can permit smoking. Still, some establishments that could allow smoking don’t, while others do. They let their customers make up their mind which places they’ll frequent.
flipflop on June 18, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Yup. I’d go further back to mandating seat belts and add wearing frickin bike helmets.
It hacks me off that the State can use police force to make me do what they think is best for me.
In the case of seat belts and bike helmets? It’s called insurance. You get hurt in a car or bike accident and don’t have coverage? Hate It !!!
BowHuntingTexas on June 18, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Yes, once we as a people begin to accept the “for your own good laws” then it never stops. It’s not the government’s job to decide what is for your own good in a free society because it always quickly gets out of control and the next thing you know you have no rights left. And the sad part is, the people eventually realize they gave them all up for their own good.
When I was going to school they taught that MY RIGHTS ended at the tip of someone else’s nose. But of course that type of thinking is out and collectivism is now very much in.
Now the thinking is if you cut down your own tree on your own property you have somehow harmed the collective, maybe they have less oxygen now as a result of your actions. In essence that means you have no rights, none at all, you exist to serve the state.
Maybe I shouldn’t get on the stump like this, but I can’t resist. Consider these three men:
A man is at church and looks out from the door. He sees two other men, one of them walking into the local bar, the other driving down the road in his SUV with his fishing gear in the in the back and towing his boat. The man at the church door thinks to himself, those two men are wrong, they should be at the house of God on this Sunday morning.
But the man in the SUV looks out and sees the man standing in the church doorway and the man going into the bar. And he thinks, those two guys are nuts. That man going to the bar is just going to get drunk and have a big hangover tomorrow. And the guy at church is just wasting his time.
Then the man going into the bar sees the other two also and he thinks… what a nutjob that man is at the church, I’m going into this bar and having a few drinks and have a good time and I’ll spend less than he spends on his tithe. Before he walks into the bar he also sees the man driving by in the SUV with all the fishing gear and the boat. He thinks to himself, that’s nuts too, that guy is going to be wet and uncomfortable and reeling in stinking fish, what a waste of time.
So the question is: Which of these three men was right?
If you are a freedom loving American you should realize THEY WERE ALL RIGHT. Each one of them was on their own time spending their own money doing what they wanted to do, and were hurting no one else in the process. No one should interfere with any of them, each of them was exercising their own rights for their own enjoyment or according to their own beliefs. This is the kind of thinking we have lost in America and it’s killing us.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 9:53 PM
hillbillyjim,
I do. It’s called asthma. It sucks.
ElectricPhase on June 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Maxx,
You missed the part where I told you that I understood the basis for your argument. The analogy doesn’t work quite as well as you’d like it to because the air we breathe is a common resource. Smoking is akin to poisoning the well, albeit in milder form.
ElectricPhase on June 18, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Doctors can’t touch that kind of issue, and it’s not uncommon, I personally have problems with smokers even in traffic at interstate speeds, life can suck like that. I personally am all for freedom, hate social engineering and such, but I do find that the smoking issue is a bit different than most. Perhaps it does affect other’s health, it certainly has mine, but I find it mostly bizarre that anyone can freely expose any other person to his recreational drugs. How many other personal “I don’t really need this for my health but it makes me happy” drugs are involuntarily imbibed by perhaps unintended victims, but victims nonetheless? I view it as assault. And no, I don’t go to bars and could care less if they smoke there, but they surely are in many places I must be, and many places I would like to be able to go.
Maquis on June 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Maybe $8/gal gas will help keep people home. Probably not for the addicted.
burt on June 18, 2008 at 10:44 PM
ElectricPhase on June 18, 2008 at 10:17 PM
No, I didn’t miss the part where you said you understood the basis for my argument. But I believe you missed my point of where such intolerance and selfishness leads.
There are certain sacrifices you have to make in order to live in a free society, one of them is to respect the freedom of others. I am often annoyed by women that wear too much perfume and it burns my eyes, but I’ve never made a single complaint about it because it’s too minor. To stir a fuss about it would be hypocritical of me if I also desire people to leave me along.
I’m often annoyed by some of the silly inane rantings I hear people get into over the fricking ball game. What a waste of breath, I don’t want to hear it. But have I ever complained? Never, not once, ever.
I hate it when people get close to me and they are talking on their stupid cell phones, very annoying, it disturbs my peace, but do I complain, NO.
We have lost common sense, we have forgot that living in a free society requires a little give and take. We have forgot how to mind our own business.
But what goes around…. comes around. People like you that cannot tolerate some minor inconvenience and jump on board the collectivist train and gleefully allow government power to make such adjustments against individual rights will eventually see their error. But then it will be too late.
Enjoy your clean air.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM
These discussions really are pointless. People who dislike smoking, or weak-willed smokers who want to quit but can’t seem to be happy with this level of government intrusion in their lives. There is a fundamental failure on the part of many to see past the end of their nose on this issue.
If you think government smoking bans are good, then stop complaining when they make other health decisions for you as well. Of course it’s logical that people should not smoke. It’s also logical that motorcyclists should wear helmets…and that people shouldn’t eat at McDonald’s.
But I’m proud that we live in a country that bases it’s laws on freedom and personal responsibility and not on eliminating unpleasant or stupid behavior. At least that’s the way it used to be.
The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions, and applauding government for taking away personal liberties just makes the grade that much steeper.
Asher on June 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM
If your lungs/sinuses/whatever are that sensitive, a man wearing a little too much Old Sock cologne must send you to the E.R. or to bed “with the vapors.”
If I seem insensitive, it’s because I’m a selfish bastard.
hillbillyjim on June 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Well said.
hillbillyjim on June 18, 2008 at 10:58 PM
There’s a lot of that going around.
Something like that, but not a concern for selfish bastards.
Maquis on June 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I realize that asthmatics can have problems with cigarette smoke and other airborne pollutants, I had a sudden asthma attack when I was six and if it hadn’t been for years of allergy shots would probably still have that problem today, but why do a minority of people with such a disease feel it necessary to ruin everybody else’s fun by insisting on a smoking ban in bars which they don’t own or operate? A massive number of smokers who’ve enjoyed the bar, (inn, pub), scene for generations have had their culture squashed so that a few asthmatics can participate in their stead. They claim to have high and mighty intentions but when it comes right down to it it’s pure unadulterated selfishness.
I predict that before too long strobe-lights will be banned in all public locations, like bars, concerts, etc, so that epileptics can participate. Will the fascists open their own clubs or host their own concerts and voluntarily ban the use of strobe lights in their own establishments? Heck no, they’ll just squash freedom and liberty again and force other private entities to do their bidding for them.
Banning smoking in government buildings is one thing but forcing the issue on private business owners as has been done to bars is the antitheses of freedom and liberty.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM
And by the way, I don’t frequent bars because it’s not my scene. I don’t have a vested interest in this issue other than as it relates to the defense of the freedom of people who own, operate of have frequented these time honored establishments.
Do I advocate legislation that would force the bars to create an environment more to my liking so that I would feel like participating in something that doesn’t currently interest me? No, it’s none of my damn business!
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:06 PM
There is no solid data that links increased cancer risk to second hand smoke. None.
It’s just been an accepted fact that it’s a killer, but it’s not unlike the lies that were told about DDT or the nonsense that passes for science in the global warming debate.
You don’t have to trust my word…do your own research.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1897,00.html
Bad science is bad science…
Asher on June 18, 2008 at 11:08 PM
But of course it’s only right and good that everyone would give up a person freedom in order to accommodate your disability…. Right? It’s not YOU being selfish at all, it’s everyone else… Correct?
Not to go Billy Graham on you, but the Bible talks of the end times where it will be neighbor against neighbor. The authorities will have accomplished getting all the public at each other’s throats.
And while we are busy bickering with each other and charging each other will assault because your neighbor thinks something as absurd that he could smoke in his own house. The collectivist in power that made all these little rules to get us at each other’s throats will be laughing while they steal the country out from under us.
We really need to learn to forgive a little sometimes and to cut each other a little slack or we are all going to hell in a hand basket.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 11:09 PM
I had to be rushed to the emergency room and spent three days in the hospital due to an asthma attack when I was a kid but it’s rare that I have that problem any more.
I remember when I was younger and flew on planes when smoking was still allowed thinking that my breathing was constricted, but I later realized that, at least in my case, it was psychosomatic. Once I stopped actively thinking about it it the sensation ceased.
The only time I experience that problem any more is when I’m trapped in an elevator where someone is wearing strong perfume. The constricted breathing is fairly minor but I almost always wind up with a migraine that last all day.
BAN PERFUME!!!
Just kidding, it’s my problem, perfume has been around for eons and I’ll just continue to cope with it.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I had a similar conversation with my mom recently. She was complaining about her neighbor’s cigar or pipe smoke and had to speak fairly loudly because it was fairly windy and her wind-chimes where making a racket.
I told her a story about when I lived in a condo and a neighbor of mine had wind-chimes that routinely caused me sleep-deprivation. While I would lay awake at night I would often fantasize about taking a pole with a hook on the end and sneaking out to remove the wind chimes from the neighbors second floor balcony and throwing them off into the greenbelt where they would be unlikely to be found.
But I never actually did it. I tolerated it and lived to tell the tale.
I explained to my mom that she should learn to tolerate the neighbors smoke and understand that he might have a similar dislike of her annoying wind-chimes.
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Great addition!
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM
You missed the part where I told you that I understood the basis for your argument. The analogy doesn’t work quite as well as you’d like it to because
the air we breathe is a common resource. Smoking is akin to poisoning the well, albeit in milder form.in this case it doesn’t suit my preference.FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:26 PM
The funny part about this is that forced over-exposure to smoking and nasty chemicals in the military is what caused my hyper-sensitivity. I’ve not asked anyone to give up freedoms, and I think smoking in bars is fine, but I do think that people should be considerate of each other, and that there should be limits or those that can only vote with their feet have no choice but to be hermits or leave the planet.
I’m cool with that, and I couldn’t survive if I didn’t.
Yeah, I cope as I must too. My problem is a neurological reaction, which admission will draw snickers from the less compassionate amongst our commenter community I’m sure, but it’s debilitating and painful and immediate. Chemical Sensitivity is a growing problem in our industrial society, and the increasing affection for stinking oneself and one’s environment up actually helps create the problem in the first place. I know, lots of folks figure that suffers of such things ought to simply pull the trigger and go away, but what if we are the canaries here?
I wish!
Maquis on June 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM
FloatingRock on June 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Well said.
Maxx on June 18, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Smoking is relatively localized- smoking in a bar doesn’t affect the air outside the bar. So I’m not sure you can use that as an excuse to trample private property. What if I want to go to a bar, but I don’t like the band that’s playing, and it’s a small bar so you can hear the band throughout the bar? Should I be able to ban that band from playing there so I can enjoy the bar the way I want to?
scotta on June 19, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Bias notification – yes, I’m a smoker.
And no, I don’t mind at all if the proprietor of an establishment chooses to make their establishment smoke-free. As much as I enjoy smoking (yep, I did use the word enjoy), I take very seriously the maxim of my rights ending where someone else’s nose begins. Literally.
I do not agree, however, with government intervention mandating the smoking preferences of private establishments it should be for the individual owners/companies to decide on their policy (none/seperate smoking area/smoke ‘em if ya gots ‘em), then let them live with the results of their clientele voting with their feet (as Maxx put it, earlier). I also do not agree with, and am often very, very greatly annoyed with the absolute lack of consideration for and of smokers shown by most governmental functions, and the excuse that the mob-rule mentality ban smoking everywhere do-gooders hand to just about everyone with ‘zero tolerance’ approaches to dealing with what, for now at least, is a legal activity – namely, the consumption of a tobacco product by an adult. While I can understand, and accept (if I know going in) an establishment has designated itself smoke free, I’m more than happy to comply, if the establishment is otherwise of interest or use to me. However, I’m more likely to give repeat business (or have a much nicer experience, in the case of public area situations) to those places that return the consideration by making even a modest effort to accomodate/cater to their smoking customers. Example – the Marriot chain will likely never get my business ever again – not because they are completely non-smoking (or ’smoke free’), but rather because they make no effort whatsoever to make any allowances for smokers (not even something even as simple as a wind break) other than butt cans placed not too near the entrances.
Likewise, I absolutely loathe most airports, for reasons other than the tender mercies of the TSA. I haven’t done a lot of air travel since 9/11, but even in 99 and 2000, most airports (seemingly particularly the hubs that HAD to be transitted) had either already totally evicted smokers (Minneapolis in Feburary? Across the open skywalk to the open sided parking garage, please! Wind chill? You BET!), or confined them to small, poorly ventilated, poorly maintained smoking lounges (show of hands – been through Atlanta?). And for the ‘well what do you freakin ADDICTS expect?’ crowd, a surprising counterpoint, in what might for many be an unexpected location – Salt Lake City. Talk about somewhere you’d expect a strong intolerance to smoking, given the personal guidelines concerning nicotine and caffeine amongst the folks making the decisions out there, but the truth is that they’re some of the most tolerant and accomodating (in this type of public setting) towards thse who don’t share their beliefs, and wish to perform that still, for now, legal activity of an adult consuming a tobacco product. Spacious, conveniently located near the gate areas, clean, and well ventilated. And their setup probably doesn’t cost any more than the cess pools that were set up in Atlanta, nor did they treat smokers like second, third, or untouchable class citizens like so many other places around the country.
It’s called accomodation. I have yet to run into a smoker who was not sensitive to, and concious of, the effect of their activity on others – it’s almost impossible these days not to – and am not aware of a single one of them that’s not more than willing to honor the wishes of other individuals who don’t choose to ingest tobacco smoke, if asked, or if understood from the outset, or if it’s brought to their attention in a civil manner. I’ve got a firmly extended middle finger for the uncivil snipish busybodies who take advantage of the general situation to whine, moan, complain, throw hissy fits, and generally screw up their faces while discussing the subject, because they’re totally oblivious to the whole rights/nose boundary issue, and have no trouble discarding any consideration whatsoever for smokers, because ‘it’s a nasty habit they should quite anyway’. I’m kinda thinkin those types of folks should have the pleasure of being locked up inside a steamroom with five huge ex-KGB type Russians that speak NO english, and are enjoying some really, really smooth Cohibas. Led off by Eliot Spitzer and Henry Waxman. But that’s just me.
Wind Rider on June 19, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I’m going back quite aways, but I remember being around smokers in various places as a child and I don’t remember hearing complaints – until buildings started becoming airtight with windows that couldn’t be opened.
Ironically, now that smoking has been banned in most buildings, the lack of fresh air from open windows is causing people to no longer have the tolerance for or the build up of immunity toward other natural allergens.
People are living their lives in allergen-free environments. That’s not healthy either.
Connie on June 19, 2008 at 12:55 AM
In a typical year, something like 13-16,000 people die because of drunk driving. The Centers for Disease Control reported 394,000 cigarette-related deaths in 2001.
Just another useless factoid
factoid on June 19, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Of course these restriction are only for the little people. All the big boys still get to make their own decisions. In fact while all federal building are no-smoking, the House of Representatives is the exception to that rule. So if your a Congressman then you are a big boy and still allow to make such personal decisions for yourself.
But sorry “little people” you must obey the state commands in order to serve the state and the collective. We need you healthy so you can work everyday and pay your taxes. So naturally, smoking is only the beginning, they will be looking at your diet and your unhealthy personal habits too very soon. It’s for your own good, they are only trying to help you.
Obama Admits Smoking Cigarettes in Last Few Months
Maxx on June 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Maquis, thanks for posting. We seem to be outnumbered. This is one of the very few times I’ve been ashamed to be a regular reader and fan of this site. I won’t carry on the argument since I believe I’ve made my point. Either you get it or you don’t.
ElectricPhase on June 19, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Oh no, you’re outnumbered and people don’t like you’re arguments?
On the plus side, you won. You get to decide what a private business does on private property and make decisions for him without his input (at least where I live, people like you won).
So pardon me if I don’t feel too sorry about you feeling outnumbered and claiming “poor me” when you’re removed private decisions for private businesses.
Yeah, I “get it”. You not only want to make decisions to be forced on others with the power of Government backing you, removing their ability to make decisions for their own property/business, you want them to like it.
And you’re ashamed that everyone doesn’t like you making decisions for someone else’s property when they don’t agree with you? You believe everyone should agree that you get to make private decisions for private businesses without having any ownership of the property involved? Are you sure you’re on the right site?
gekkobear on June 19, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Smoking bans are good. The ban started here while I was still a smoker. It was not a problem… pop outside and have a cigarette and meet some new people with the same bad habit. I still sometimes visit a local place which still lets people smoke and I have to leave sometimes because I don’t like all the smoke. Overall I think these laws are good.
Suggesting that the smoking ban is causing people to drive drunk is about the weakest argument one can make against the bans. So habitual drunk drivers have to go a little further… therefore we should allow smoking to cut down their drunk driving distance?
lexhamfox on June 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Oh my God! This is wonderful news. Now the Government pigs can tax auto accidents. Of course this will be used as a new ruse to further tax smokers (the ones who survive the accidents).
Greasywrench clicks sarcasm button…greasywrench on June 19, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I support them because they help to bring down the high cost of health care related to smoking. I have many friends who chose to quit because bans in various public places made it easier for them to do so. People spend their lives puffing on cigarettes, then when they contract smoking-related diseases, their insurance companies help to bail them out of the health care costs. This drives EVERYONE’S health care costs up.
Otherwise, I wouldn’t give a rat’s a$$ if they chose a slow death by smoking.
RMCS_USN on June 19, 2008 at 5:56 PM
That’s a canard. Smokers cost LESS, with respect to health care, than non-smokers. They die earlier and tend to drop off more quickly. People tend to make some assumption that if they don’t get a disease from smoking they’ll never get any disease. Everyone dies. Smokers die more cheaply.
Add to that the huge savings to Social Security (unless you are going to argue that smokers live longer than others) and the tax revenue collected from cigarettes and you see that there is no fiscal case to be made – quite the opposite.
It might not sound nice to you, but the longer people live, they more health care spending they require (along with ancillary costs), and the cost rises exponentially. If everyone in the US lived to 120, we’d be totally broke.
progressoverpeace on June 19, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Comment pages: