penalty for texting & driving

Quote: kenarman

First glance would seem to indicate that instituting the ban slowed the rate of smokers quiting.

Yeah, but C. Everett Koop and the initial tax got most people to quit before the indoor ban.

Quote: reno

Quote: bigfoot66

Finally you are missing the bigger point here which is that legislation has unintended consequences that are very difficult to predict beforehand. Sometimes these unintended consequences result in death, like the smoking ban.

"Death?" Do honestly believe that the smoking bans have killed more lives than they've saved?

Some laws are too new to judge their intended benefits and unintended costs too society. But in California the 1998 indoor smoking ban has been on the books for 15 years! 15 years ought to be a long enough period to determine whether the law is a success or a failure. So Mr. Bigfoot, tell me about the unintended consequences this law had in California. Tell me about the tobacco speakeasies that popped up on every street corner from San Diego to San Francisco. Tell me about the horrific increase in drunk-driving which has ravaged the Golden State since 1998.

Sure, California does indeed have a few illegal modern-day speakeasies for smokers. But they're filled with marijuana smoke, not tobacco smoke.

I am starting to wonder why I am arguing with you as you refuse to address any of my points. Did you even read what I wrote? I did not say that smoking bans have cost more lives than they've saved. I didn't say that DUI's and traffic deaths doubled overnight when the ban went into effect. I didn't say that smoking is becoming more popular.

I said that, on the margin, smoking bans in bars encourage smokers to drink and drive and that this will increase traffic fatalities ceteris paribus. I linked to a study that you have completely ignored that demonstrated this to be the case. That's all. I don't care about marijuana bars, overall traffic fatalities, baccarat systems, or dice control.

You continue to make claims that are simply not true because you do not let the facts get in the way of what you believe. I can name 3 bars that I have smoked cigarettes in: The Iron Mule in Lake Forest, The Goat Hill Tavern in Costa Mesa, and The Huddle in Costa Mesa. They distribute ashtrays in these establishments. Here's the links to their respective yelp pages which confirms that smoking is allowed. Feel free to ignore them: http://www.yelp.com/biz/iron-mule-lake-forest, http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-huddle-costa-mesa , http://www.yelp.com/biz/goat-hill-tavern-costa-mesa. If you live in Tustin and want to smoke while you drink, you have to drive to one of these places instead of going to any of the bars that are found all over Tustin itself. The additional intoxicated driving tends to increase the number of alcohol related crashes and more crashes means more fatalities.

This is an UNINTENDED EFFECT of the legislation. The lesson is that when you impose things from the top down on people like this you will often get unintended effects right along side the intended effect. In medicine we call these "side effects". I am not making a judgement on if the benefits outweigh the costs. I am just trying to demonstrate that society is terribly complex and that textbook government solutions to our problems need to be thoroughly examined and implemented with great caution because we simply cannot anticipate all of the consequences of legislation.

Quote: kenarman

I am not sure I believe in the increased deaths from the smoking ban since neither side has referenced any statistics and it doesn't really pass the smell test for me. I do find the graph in your post quite interesting though. From 1984 to 1998 (indoor ban) the smoking rate fell 10%. From the start of the ban in 1998 the next 12 years only dropped the rate another 5% in roughly the same amount of time. First glance would seem to indicate that instituting the ban slowed the rate of smokers quiting.

I cited this study back on page 3.
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeepubeco/v_3a92_3ay_3a2008_3ai_3a5-6_3ap_3a1288-1305.htm

Quote: bigfoot66

I linked to a study that you have completely ignored that demonstrated this to be the case.

Your link to Adams & Cotti's study required a subscription. Use this link instead. In their conclusion (section 6) Adams & Cotti suggest a better model would be for the federal government to pass a well-enforced national law so that there's no incentive to drive to a jurisdiction without a ban. I agree. A national law would be better than a patchwork of inconsistent local and state laws. But it could never pass the House or Senate.

Quote: bigfoot66

I don't care about marijuana bars, overall traffic fatalities, baccarat systems, or dice control.

Huh? Baccarat and dice control?

Quote: bigfoot66

I can name 3 bars that I have smoked cigarettes in: The Iron Mule in Lake Forest, The Goat Hill Tavern in Costa Mesa, and The Huddle in Costa Mesa. They distribute ashtrays in these establishments.

My error, I stand corrected. Enforcement is not 100%. But these exceptions you cited are very rare.

Quote: bigfoot66

I am just trying to demonstrate that society is terribly complex and that textbook government solutions to our problems need to be thoroughly examined and implemented with great caution because we simply cannot anticipate all of the consequences of legislation.

It's always a gamble that new legislation won't backfire. After 15 years, we ought to know in hindsight if the law is a success. Apparently in Orange County, at least 3 bars ignore the statute. But the vast majority of bars, pubs, saloons, taverns, restaurants, shopping malls, airports, office buildings, and bowling alleys in California are smoke-free. And drunk-driving fatalities have decreased, not increased.

You know why, you're just being difficult. TWD is probably more dangerous, unless your eating a steak dinner in your car. When it comes to laws about distracted driving that's kind of ambiguous. Texting is cut and dry.

Quote: reno

Your link to Adams & Cotti's study required a subscription. Use this link instead. In their conclusion (section 6) Adams & Cotti suggest a better model would be for the federal government to pass a well-enforced national law so that there's no incentive to drive to a jurisdiction without a ban. I agree. A national law would be better than a patchwork of inconsistent local and state laws. But it could never pass the House or Senate.

You are right that a rigorously enforced national ban on smoking in bars would probably minimize this problem to some extent. But again the lesson is that this legislation would have its own unintended effects. Part of the problem is that it is extremely difficult to predict these problems.

Quote: reno

My error, I stand corrected. Enforcement is not 100%. But these exceptions you cited are very rare.

I don't think the exceptions are as rare as you think. I don't regularly smoke, I probably have 3 cigarettes a month. These are bars that I have just stumbled into and discovered that they allow smoking. I am very sure that there are several more near me, but even if not places with large outdoor patios could serve the same function.

Quote: reno

It's always a gamble that new legislation won't backfire. After 15 years, we ought to know in hindsight if the law is a success. Apparently in Orange County, at least 3 bars ignore the statute. But the vast majority of bars, pubs, saloons, taverns, restaurants, shopping malls, airports, office buildings, and bowling alleys in California are smoke-free. And drunk-driving fatalities have decreased, not increased.

Yes of course. The lesson is simply that very simple systems (like the political system) simply do not have access to all of the information and mechanisms at work in very complicated systems like the world economy. When evaluating legislation we need to just be aware of the fact that, as a tool, legislation is not a gps guided smart bomb that pinpoints in on its target and affects no one else, it is closer to a firestorm of cannonballs shot out of 500 year old cannons. While the cannons are still likely to hit the target, there is a lot more effected and it is not possible to predict exactly what the collateral damage will be.

A Final point is that there are in fact positive unintended consequences, they are not always negative.