« Pick-and-choose | Main | Hanging tough »


John S.

Why is it that journalists show a healthy degree of skepticism about what the government says, but never seem to question claims that are published in scientific journals?

Andrew Gelman

Hey, Kaiser. Didn't you get the memo? It's "unintended consequences"! Anything that's supposed to save lives will kill people--it's the iron law of unintended consequences. Conversely, anything that sounds dangerous will actually save lives. At some point the government will realize this and start simply requiring people to smoke. (Of course, that will only work if it's not intended to work. It's like that "reverse psychology" thing that they used to talk about when we were kids.)


Curious readers should consult these Gelman posts.
What kind of law is the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Battle of the unintended consequences
Further discussion
Unintended consequences of forgetting unintended consequences

Craig M. Newmark

Here is the abstract (June 2008, pp. 1288-1305):

"Using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations—smokers driving longer distances to a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks."


Then there is the perverse argument that by dying prematurely in a crash, this still has the effect of reducing smoking-related deaths and the associated public health costs of an expensive chronic-disease-related death.

Perverse interpretation, but hey.


Interesting analysis. The distance of the bar can really increase the possibility of having an accident when trying to find a bar which allows smoking. Now, I'm torn between drinking while smoking and drinking without smoking. Because one of the two has a higher risk of getting into an accident.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter