Pribek

Last night, Britney Spears, at a Vancouver gig, left the stage for over an hour because of second hand smoke. From Contact Music…

An announcement was then made, reportedly ordering the audience to stop smoking marijuana and cigarettes in the arena as it was “unsafe” for Spears to perform…

…When the show ended, Spears took a moment to warn against smoking, telling the crowd: “Thanks Vancouver. You were wonderful. Drive safe. Don’t smoke weed!”

“Don’t smoke weed!!??”

Vancouver!!??

OFFICER BUZZKILL

I guess my dream of Britney at Bonnaroo isn’t going to happen.

This is a story from Breitbart/AFP about a study that appeared in the Journal of Public Economics.

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.

So, you ban smoking to protect people from second hand smoke but, the net result is that more people get killed by drunk drivers.

Which do you prefer, second hand smoke or, drunk drivers?

“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.”

People that smoke want to light up while they are having a cocktail.

They are going to risk their lives and your life in order to have the combination.

Here’s the question; Are the smoking bans working? Is banning smoking in bars…working for the greater good?

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.

Well, according to Scott and Chad…we don’t know. Smoking bans may be working or, they may not. It’s going to take years to figure it out. Because, there are “potential positive health impacts”. What would those “potential positive health impacts” be? Well, potentially there would be less people dying from second hand smoke.

Well, no, actually it would be that, potentially there would be less people that hang out in bars dying from second hand smoke. Really though, if you think about it, there would potentially be less non-smokers that hang out in bars dying from second hand smoke. Because, the smokers are going to smoke. They are going to get in the car, drunk, and drive to the next county to have a smoke.

All due respect Scott and Chad I think we can suss this out without taking years to do it. If your data is correct that is.

Let’s say you live in an area that has 100 drunk driving deaths per year. If you ban smoking, in bars; you are going to have 12 more drunk driving deaths the next year. Weighing those 12 deaths against the “potential positive health impacts”, the number of non-smokers, who hang out in bars, that die from second hand smoke-that number would have to decrease by at least 13 in the next year.

It is all utterly ridiculous. It’s folly.

How do we solve the problem?

We can do one of three things.

We can ban smoking all together. But, smokers; we know that they will risk their lives and others’ in order to light up.

We can ban drinking all together. Didn’t work very well last time, did it?

Or, we can have bars where people are allowed to smoke. It’s a bar, not a health club. If you are so worried about your health, non smoker; why hang around in a bar?