Could lighting up save your life?

I've just come across a fascinating little piece in The Atlantic. It concerns the impact of smoking bans.

A new study in the Journal of Public Economics by Scott Adams and Chad Cotti shows 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 the authors think that the crashes are partly the result of jurisdiction hopping, with smokers driving to bars that will let them puff away.

What then about a national ban?

The Atlantic says this:

Growing evidence from neurological research also 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.

While a national smoking ban could offset some of the increase in fatalities, perhaps alcohol, like coffee, is simply best (and safest) when enjoyed with cigarettes.

Comments

[Tom]

That certainly chimes with my experience since the English ban: I have been smoking generally less, even at home, and drinking generally more, at home and out. And I'm certain it's because I don't have a cigarette in my hand.

[Gill]

I don't smoke now, haven't for nearly 30 years. But I do recall that, on long car journeys, lighting a cigarette provided a bit of variety that broke the tedium and probably helped me to stay awake and alert. I wonder if that could be a factor here?

[Frank Upton]

The poor dears. Should we issue everyone with a rubber dummy?

[Tony]

I started smoking socially when the smoking ban came in. When friends would go outside, it became an area to socialise and meet new people and I started smoking for something to do and I suppose to join in. I still think the smoking ban is a good idea though, because what stats like the ones pushed in this article don't indicate is all the people who will live longer due to no passive smoking.

[chas]

Before the ban I noticed that non-smokers drank faster than smokers. A smoker would smoke in between 'sips'.

[Andy]

Well gill, people lighting cigarettes while driving have certainly provided me with some exciting incidents over the years; the little adrenaline kick when you see the car wandering out of lane and into your path is a great tedium-reliever.

Incidentally, did you know that it's almost impossible to tell from the smell whether a car that goes past at 60mph has a petrol or diesel engine, but you can always tell if someone's smoking in it?

[Philip Larkin]

Having given up smoking a couple of times I notice that after not smoking for a few days the effect of drink is LESS not more (and no hangovers). I did find lighting a cigarette on a long tiring journey did help me concentrate.

[Zitori Markews]

NO-ONE has ever died from passive smoking! There is NO evidence to uphold this 'fact', only the indoctrination of epidemiology. Wake up and do some research. REAL science blows the propaganda out of the water I'm afraid. You poor frightened victims of the anti-smoking crusade, you've ALL been conned for the most lucrative scam in history.

[frank]

the selfish behaviour of smokers and drinkers starts with their mother giving her kids sugar to keep them quiet leading to a life of addiction of some sort to make themselves feel good!

[Gill]

Chas, I wasn't defending smoking, in or out of cars, and I've noticed that the excitement experienced by drivers who've just dropped a lighted cigarette is another thrill I can manage without (especially as a passenger). And cars routinely driven by smokers smell awful, to the point where I think only another smoker would consider buying them. But given the choice between the dangers of a driver smoking and a driver falling asleep at the wheel, give me the smoker every time!

[DOGEND]

IT WAS ALWAYS OBVIOUS THAT A CIGARETTE BAN WOULD INCREASE ALCOHOLIC CONSUMPTION. BUT THE 'NANNY STATE' KNOWS 'BEST'.

[Patrice]

This article isn't good. The reason for this is that it is conjecture. While it may be representative of someone who engages in these behaviours who believes in this manner, how can it be relied upon as an across-the-board statement. First, their PERCEPTIONS are unreliable and vastly different than if they did not do this. Second, people differ so vastly from each other that a general theory application to others behaving in the same manner does not coincide with accuracy.

[chas]

Gill
Mine was the post above my name. I do agree with you that smoking can help stop somebody falling asleep at the wheel, especially on a long boring journey.

[Alex]

It is well known that nicotine as a drug helps concentration, as well as keeping you awake.

[lorraine]

HI I GAVE UP SMOKING 2WKS AGO,ITS MADE ME REALISE HOW INCONSIDERATE AND SELFISH I WAS TOWARDS NONE SMOKERS.MY SON IN LAW LIT A CIGGIE IN IS CAR A FEW WEEKS AGO AND DROPPED IT,WHAT A COMOTION THAT CAUSED.NEARLY CRASHED AND SET CAR ON FIRE NEVER AGAIN. I SMOKED FOR 33YRS 30 A DAY,BEST THING I EVER DID WAS GIVE UP,I WENT ON A MASHINE CALLED BIOQUIT.I WELL RECOMEND

[Howard]

I have found that the UK smoking ban encourages travel - to France, Italy etc, who have similar laws but exercise common sense (e.g. they have No Smoking areas but still retain the ashtrays)!

[adrian]

Frank,
be quiet and leave posts to the grownups,
Adrian

[Frenchcountrygirl]

Philip Larkin, as an asthma sufferer, I can tell you, being anywhere near someone smoking, causes me GREAT DIFFICULTY, I avoid such areas as much as possible.

The problem now is: I have to walk throw a curtain of smoke to get into public buildings.

Smoking is disgusting, and why anyone would want to damage perfectly good lungs with this habit , is totally beyond my understanding.

I think that there should be a way of smokers having a major asthmatic attack (obviously under medical supervision) for them to then learn to appreciate the wonder of perfect lungs!!

[Andy]

Does anybody have any reliable stats on overall motor accident rates for smokers vs non-smokers?

As for Zitori's (literally) unbelievable rant, I'll not even bother to quote the evidence, but you could look at

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm

If you can show me evidence from "real science" that you mention, I would be very happy to look at it.

But I'd have to ask: "the most lucrative scam in history"? Even supposing that some people do make money out of researching evidence on smoking, etc, there aren't exactly a lot of people getting rich on the back of smoking bans (manufacturers of no smoking signs maybe?). Wouldn't you say that this honour belongs far better with an industry that makes huge profits by cynically peddling lethal, addictive drugs?

[cuffleyburgers]

The smoking bans are an outrageous infringement of the rights of the citizen and a perfect example of the alarming tendency of this disgraceful, incompetent government to seek to regulate every aspect of our lives.

As has been correctly pointed out here, there is no good evidence of the damage of passive smoking, and certainly not enough to justify this egregious peice of legislation.

The correct approach would have been to leave it to the individual choice of the bar owner.

It would also be just about acceptable to make the provision of no smoking areas a condition of certain types of licencing arrangements.

An outright ban at national level is not what national government is for.

Spoken as an ex-smoker by the way.

[chas]

FRENCHCOUNTRYGIRL
For decades, the number of smokers has been decreasing whilst the number of vehicles on our roads has been increasing. The Norwich Union state that in the last twenty-five years, asthma in children has increased fivefold. Diesel fumes are particularly harmful to asthma sufferers.

[Zitori]

Andy, there was no 'rant' in my post, just a truthful comment. I've noticed that when anyone challenges the hateful propaganda of the anti-smoking criminals it is described as a rant. Very revealing. The lucrative scam started in the US, and has become the richest in history combining the Master settlement agreement of over 200 BILLION dollars,much of it going to anti-smoking groups, and the NRT and psychotropic drug industry, now a trillion dollar industry worlwide, the real reason for the bans.
The 'real' science as opposed to the epidemiological fraud that you have fallen for is wellknown. The studies are available from Forces.org and will give you hours of revelations, that's if you are not scientifically illiterate, which you unfortunately probably are,as
your reference is from the very people who are perpetrating the lies.
Much of this will become public in the near future.

[Tony Collins]

Andy, where was the 'rant'?
Zitori was absolutely correct.
Before believing the old canard of 'The power of Big Tobacco' just remember that the combined resources of tobacco companies pale into insignificance compared to the worldwide domination of 'Big Pharma', Tobacco's direct competitors.
That's where the really big money is made.
Most of the so-called 'evidence' we hear about emanates from these giants and their satellites, paid for with our money through profits, charities, taxes, government grants and lobby groups. This has been going on for forty years, and anti-tobacco has grown into a gigantic worldwide movement where millions of people are being paid to come up with these 'facts'. And it is common knowledge that you can prove anything with statistics; in this case, epidemiology.
We are talking mega-movement here, with all the fanatical zeal of a religion.
As for 'lethal'. Did you know that in 1997 the world's longest-lived frenchwoman (aged 121 at that time) and some of the longest lived people were smokers?
Define 'Lethal' for me please.

[Andy]

So presumably the "big pharma" companies know that smoking really makes you healthier, and they don't want that 'cos that's less drugs they sell?
I'm looking forward to the astounding revelations that are going to "become public in the near future", I presume it's got something to do with Area 51 & JFK, but I'm not going to hold my breath (except when someone's smoking near me, of course)

[jema54j]

Smoking bans are not, and were never intended to be, about health. Smoking bans are all about CONTROL.

Why have people failed to note this? Hitler tried banning cigarette smoking and failed, Lenin tried it and failed, the Provincial Premiers/City Councils will fail too. Unfortunately the latter will bankrupt many businesses on the way.

Canadians are very independant and they will not put up with dictatorship. The 'almighty' WHO is not Lord of this land, they will soon be hated for their intrusion into our lives via the Global Warming hoax - it is unravelling faster than a spider's web in a swinging door; with it will go all the credibility of the so called 'scientists' that work for that human hating outfit.

I laugh at all politicians that ban anything - they are fools who do not know or understand the Canadian citizens - we are not 'tolerant' of dictatorship; we don't march around with flags and ghetto blasters we stay home!! We vacation and spend our money in places where we are welcome and appreciated. We take our Freedom seriously and do not miss the company or preaching of those that don't.

The hospitality business is on the verge of collapse in the Yukon. PC is the reason for this aversion to the Yukon Territory and the total smoking ban is the number one PC reason. It is too cold to smoke outside eight months of the year and the latest ban has banned smoking on outdoor patios - over the top stupidity but very disastrous for those who invested in a luxury welfare state with pandering politicians.