Unintended consequences ... AGAIN

It isn't out yet, but according to a forthcoming article in the Journal of Public Economics, smoking bans increase drunken-driving fatalities:

One might expect that a ban on smoking in bars would deter some people from showing up, thereby reducing the number of people driving home drunk. But jurisdictions with smoking bans often border jurisdictions without bans, and some bars may skirt the ban, so that smokers can bypass the ban with extra driving. There is also a large overlap between the smoker and alcoholic populations, which would exacerbate the danger from extra driving. The authors estimate that smoking bans increase fatal drunken-driving accidents by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county.

Though I was against it on principle, I must say I'm enjoying the reality of Decatur's smoking ban. It really is nice to be able to go to restaurants and the one nice bar in town without reeking afterwards. Though I will admit to liking the outcome of the ban, I shuddered when I saw one of the conclusions these researchers drew from there study. Think about it; wouldn't this study might you discount the "wisdom" of future bans? I'm not saying you'd change your mind about it, but wouldn't it at least give you pause? No.

Assuming a smoking ban is still worth it, the results suggest the need for a more aggressive approach to drunken driving - or a nationwide smoking ban.

Yes, smoking bans lead to more drunken-driving fatalities, so we need MORE bans! Now in reality, that's perfectly in keeping with the results of the study -- and sort of creative to boot. The problem arises from bars in neighboring jurisdictions that are not subject to the ban. So one way to fix the problem is to outlaw "neighboring jurisdictions" and make everyone subject to the same ban. Yep, it'd work, BUT ... Want to bet whether this would have an unintended consequence as well? I know which side my money would be on.

NOTE: I just noticed an interesting contrast between the policy prescription in this study compared to that for dry counties next to wet counties. I've got a million things to do today, though, so I'll have to come back to that in a couple of days. Yes, a cliff hanger. I'm sure you can't wait to read my thoughts. Right?