Scientific Evidence Portal
Drunk Driving After the Passage of Smoking Bans in Bars | Scott Adams, Chad Cotti
Article Published: 2008
Type: Articles and Dissertations
Published By: Journal of Public Economics
Further Information Smoking bans are not just devastating the economy, but have a whole series of negative effects that the antismoking propaganda, of course, ignores.
The disintegration of social fabrics is one of them, for example, as it sets citizen against citizen and creates social resentments that escalate every day.
Another inevitable negative effect is finally emerging even unto antitobacco's slow wits: an increase in drunk driving after the implementation of smoking bans. If smokers have to drive to a bar that allows smoking, when the tap on the neighborhood corner goes "smoke-free," well then, they drive.
This study in the Journal of Public Economics by Scott Adams and Chad Cotti reports that the bans have been associated with a 13 per cent rise in the number of fatal car accidents.
Because accidents in neighbouring areas have gone up even more than in ban areas themselves, the authors opine that the crashes are considerably a result of jurisdiction-hopping, with smokers driving often long distances to bars that will let them puff away.
The fair and sane way to proceed would be to eliminate the smoking bans, of course, as they are based on trash science in the first place, but that is not acceptable to “public health,” which believes that, regardless of the trash science, smoking bans are “good” because they “create a hostile environment to smoking.” Arrogant health "authorities" will induce smokers to quit the "deadly habit" for which not even one death can be scientifically demonstrated. Real corpses along this path to "progress" are just kicked aside.
We're told incidentally in this report that growing evidence from neurological research suggests that smoking lessens a drinker’s level of intoxication, and that nicotine deprivation can sharpen the urge to drink. As a result, the authors say, smokers who comply with the ban and elect to booze close to home may be drinking more, or getting more drunk from the same number of drinks.
Ultimately, inescapably, the Healthists will conclude upon the necessity of total national alcohol prohibition and a total national smoking ban. Then the smoker will have no choice but to run to the drug store and quit with the products of Big Pharma, that controls “public health” which, in turn, considers irrelevant whether the citizen chooses to be “healthy” or not. Of course that will not work, as history has already demonstrated, but that does not represent a problem for "public health." The delusion is that, with a few tweaks to prohibition, history may not repeat itself and prohibition and state control will triumph, this time, and with enough force.
If they ever consider the failure of their prohibitions, even that prospect will not stop them from trying, for by the time the war has ended, whatever the outcome, today's prohibitionists will be safely out of office and well off financially as a reward for calling themselves heroes while misleading the public. Society – not them – will be left to handle the devastation.
Consider that, after the American alcohol Prohibition failed, those who were responsible were not put in jail or otherwise punished. No social safeguards were put in place to prevent the recurrence of the prohibition phenomenon that we are experiencing today. In short, there was no social revenge, so the assassins of truth and freedom today feel they have nothing to fear would the worst happen. In that case they would find it convenient to believe that history will repeat itself.
It is the duty of all those who fight against prohibition and for scientific integrity, we believe, to make sure that this will not be the case, this time.