Smoking Bans Kill

Smoking Bans Kill

Unlucky strikes
Apr 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents

BANNING smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages
people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm.
That, at least, is the theory. Whether it works may depend on how uniform
anti-smoking legislation is.

Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a
piecemeal approach. A number of states, counties and municipalities have
introduced various types of bans, and have enforced them with varying
degrees of rigour.

The problem with this, say Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, economists at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, is that smoking bans seem to have been
followed by an increase in drunk-driving and in fatal accidents involving
alcohol. In research published in the Journal of Public Economics, the
authors find evidence that smokers are driving farther to places where
smoking in bars is allowed.

The researchers analysed data from 120 American counties, 20 of which had
banned smoking. They found a smoking ban increased fatal alcohol-related car
accidents by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people. This is the
equivalent of 2.5 fatal accidents (equivalent to approximately six deaths).
Furthermore, drunk-driving smokers have not changed their ways over time. In
areas where the ban has been in place for longer than 18 months, the
increased accident rate is 19%.

The findings, say the pair, are consistent with the suggestion that smokers
are driving farther to alternative places to drink. This may be because they
are driving to bars with outdoor seating, or to bars which are not enforcing
the smoking ban.

Another explanation is that some smokers are "jurisdiction shopping" to
places where they may puff. Accident rates can be especially high where
border-hopping to still-smoky bars is possible. Accidents in Delaware county
in Pennsylvania increased by 26% after the next-door state of Delaware
introduced a smoking ban in 2002. Similarly, when Boulder county banned
smoking, fatal accidents in Jefferson county, between Boulder county and
Denver, went up by 40%. How this weighs up against the long-term health
effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to
well-meaning legislators.

Re: Smoking Bans Kill

It sounds like what we really need is an outright ban on the sale,
distribution and possession of Alcohol and tobacco.

CigarSki - It works for the drug trade; doesen't it?

Re: Smoking Bans Kill


"CigarSki" <CigarSki@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:FyMJj.583$Xy2.307@trndny04...
> It sounds like what we really need is an outright ban on the sale,
> distribution and possession of Alcohol and tobacco.
>
> CigarSki - It works for the drug trade; doesen't it?



Yes, it does....with a few glitches.




Okay, a lot of glitches.




Okay, one massive SNAFU.




Okay.....

Re: Smoking Bans Kill

CigarSki wrote:
> It sounds like what we really need is an outright ban on the sale,
> distribution and possession of Alcohol and tobacco.
>
> CigarSki - It works for the drug trade; doesen't it?

Yeah, and it worked for alcohol too, back in the 1920's, right?

Bring back prohibition!


--Brett

Re: Smoking Bans Kill


"vex" <vex@nospamvexicon . com > wrote
> CigarSki wrote:
>> It sounds like what we really need is an outright ban on the sale,
>> distribution and possession of Alcohol and tobacco.
>>
>> CigarSki - It works for the drug trade; doesen't it?
>
> Yeah, and it worked for alcohol too, back in the 1920's, right?
>
> Bring back prohibition!


The anti-tobacco nazis have that next on the agenda. Believe me, they know
how you should live your life and they mean for force you to do it.

If you don't believe me, visit some of those utopias-in-the-making on the
left coast of the USA. They're banning everything they can think of "for the
children" and "for your own good".


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
fermanis@REMOVEsprynet . com
==================================
CRESCENT CITY CRAWFISH CIGAR CRAWL
Weekend of April 19, 2008
* w w w .nolaherf . com
==================================

Re: Smoking Bans Kill

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:05:09 GMT, "CigarSki" <CigarSki@gmail . com >
wrote:

>It sounds like what we really need is an outright ban on the sale,
>distribution and possession of Alcohol and tobacco.
>


You forgot firearms.

Guns don't kill people. People who aren't allowed to smoke indoors
like adults kill people.

Re: Smoking Bans Kill

Ray wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:05:09 GMT, "CigarSki" <CigarSki@gmail . com >
> wrote:
>
>
>> It sounds like what we really need is an outright ban on the sale,
>> distribution and possession of Alcohol and tobacco.
>>
>>
>
>
> You forgot firearms.
>
> Guns don't kill people. People who aren't allowed to smoke indoors
> like adults kill people.
>

Guns don't kill people, the second hand smoke from the ignited gun
powder kills people...

Re: Smoking Bans Kill

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:51:39 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>How this weighs up against the long-term health
>effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to
>well-meaning legislators.

Poo on the legislators. The public is getting what it deserves! (OK,
maybe not, but the bans based on junk science really piss me off.)

CigarBaron
(stamping feet again)

Smoking Ban

Beijing adding 40,000 smoking inspectors

Published: April 25, 2008 at 7:35 AM

BEIJING, April 25 (UPI) -- Beijing officials announced a campaign Friday
to hire 40,000 inspectors by May 1 to enforce a smoking ban in public
places.

There are already 60,000 inspectors in the city, Sun Xianli, an official
with the Patriotic Health Campaign Committee, said at a news conference
at the Olympic media center.

"The idea is that the inspectors should provide a good example by not
smoking in their own venues," Sun said.

Inspectors don't have the authority to issue fines, but can report
venues where smoking is allowed, Sun said. Those sites can be fined $700
by the city, the state-run Xinhua news agency said.

Venues covered by the ban include office buildings and hotels. It does
not apply to restaurants, bars or massage parlors.

Li Lingyan, deputy director of the city's legislative office, said a
12-year-old law on public smoking is being rewritten and toughened.

"Beijing authorities are determined to introduce a blanket ban on
smoking at all indoor public venues," she said.

* w w w .upi . com /NewsTrack/Top News/2008/04/25/beijing adding 40000 smoking inspectors/8921/


Ironically the Chinese smoking ban is less restrictive than the Florida
ban ;-/

Re: Smoking Ban

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:25:00 -0400, Ken Dixon <nsvmiami@bellsouth . net >
wrote:

>
>"Beijing authorities are determined to introduce a blanket ban on
>smoking at all indoor public venues," she said.

Boy that second had tobacco smoke is a killer! Think I'll bad mouth
the Chinese government. Now let's see which is more dangerous. :-)
CigarBaron

Re: Smoking Ban


"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
news:um8614laeoupb9esodpd0kspnj4m8appa9@4ax . com ...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:25:00 -0400, Ken Dixon <nsvmiami@bellsouth . net >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Beijing authorities are determined to introduce a blanket ban on
>>smoking at all indoor public venues," she said.
>
> Boy that second ha(n)d tobacco smoke is a killer! Think I'll bad mouth
> the Chinese government.

Just don't do it on Google.

> Now let's see which is more dangerous. :-)

Quite!

Let's see: Mao killed something like 30 million...

Damn, that must have been some heavy 2nd hand smoke!!!

Re: Smoking Ban


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:3KHQj.3074$1M1.1559@newsfe23.lga...
>
> "Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
> news:um8614laeoupb9esodpd0kspnj4m8appa9@4ax . com ...
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:25:00 -0400, Ken Dixon <nsvmiami@bellsouth . net >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Beijing authorities are determined to introduce a blanket ban on
>>>smoking at all indoor public venues," she said.
>>
>> Boy that second ha(n)d tobacco smoke is a killer! Think I'll bad mouth
>> the Chinese government.
>
> Just don't do it on Google.
>
>> Now let's see which is more dangerous. :-)
>
> Quite!
>
> Let's see: Mao killed something like 30 million...
>
> Damn, that must have been some heavy 2nd hand smoke!!!

Cordite smoke kills!

Re: Smoking Bans Kill

On Apr 5, 10:51 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Unlucky strikes
> Apr 3rd 2008
> From The Economist print edition
>
> America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents
>
> BANNING smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages
> people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm.
> That, at least, is the theory. Whether it works may depend on how uniform
> anti-smoking legislation is.
>
> Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a
> piecemeal approach. A number of states, counties and municipalities have
> introduced various types of bans, and have enforced them with varying
> degrees of rigour.
>
> The problem with this, say Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, economists at the
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, is that smoking bans seem to have been
> followed by an increase in drunk-driving and in fatal accidents involving
> alcohol. In research published in the Journal of Public Economics, the
> authors find evidence that smokers are driving farther to places where
> smoking in bars is allowed.
>
> The researchers analysed data from 120 American counties, 20 of which had
> banned smoking. They found a smoking ban increased fatal alcohol-related car
> accidents by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people. This is the
> equivalent of 2.5 fatal accidents (equivalent to approximately six deaths).
> Furthermore, drunk-driving smokers have not changed their ways over time. In
> areas where the ban has been in place for longer than 18 months, the
> increased accident rate is 19%.
>
> The findings, say the pair, are consistent with the suggestion that smokers
> are driving farther to alternative places to drink. This may be because they
> are driving to bars with outdoor seating, or to bars which are not enforcing
> the smoking ban.
>
> Another explanation is that some smokers are "jurisdiction shopping" to
> places where they may puff. Accident rates can be especially high where
> border-hopping to still-smoky bars is possible. Accidents in Delaware county
> in Pennsylvania increased by 26% after the next-door state of Delaware
> introduced a smoking ban in 2002. Similarly, when Boulder county banned
> smoking, fatal accidents in Jefferson county, between Boulder county and
> Denver, went up by 40%. How this weighs up against the long-term health
> effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to
> well-meaning legislators.

In research, the terms "suggestion" and "jurisdiction shopping" are
equivalent, respectively, with "I'm not a scientist" and "There are
promotions for junior reporters around here, right?"

*CIGAR* smokers are sensible folk who avoid drunk driving. Didn't you
know that?

----
I AM THE HALBERT