Unintended consequences: public smoking bans shift death to sooner rather than later
People in bars , be they smokers or non smokers , are there because they have chosen to be. That’s insufficient reason to allow them to make that choice they are adults after all. Many localities have stepped in to prevent such choice because.. well because they think they have a right to do so. Practically they do. With enough guns and clipboards you can claim about anything you like.
like it will save lives
“Preventing smoking in public places is a proven public health intervention that saves lives,” Vigil said.
Very rarely do we get a chance where a single vote can save lives,” Curran said.
Here’s a plausible reason for suggesting that it’s not as much saving lives as choosing who gets to die, e.g unintended consequences to someone’s desire to save lives.
“The increased miles driven by drivers who
wish to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from
smokers choosing to stay home after a ban, resulting in increased
alcohol-related accidents,” the study says.
A national study to be released by the Journal of Public Economics found an increase of fatal accidents involving alcohol after communities prohibited smoking, compared to arrests in communities without a ban.
Seatbelts save lives? It all depends on whose lives you want to save.
Statistical evidence indicates that seat belts save the lives of many
drivers and front-seat passengers. But a recent survey of automobile
accidents in Britain suggests that drivers who wear seat belts may
represent a new menace to pedestrians and bicyclists.
I’d rather the people engaged in the primary behaviour assume the risk of doing so , smoke, crash or take your liver out in your own time. Seems better than paying for the privilege of being nannied to death.
No comments yet. Be the first.
Leave a reply