The law of unintended consequences strikes again

The law of unintended consequences strikes again. The piecemeal approach to
smoking bans has led to an increase in drunk driving fatalities.

Smoking and drinking

Unlucky
<http://www.economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10966152>
strikes

Apr 3rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

America's smoking bans are causing fatal accidents

BANNING smoking in public places is supposed to save lives. It encourages
people to smoke less, so they do themselves and those around them less harm.
That, at least, is the theory. Whether it works may depend on how uniform
anti-smoking legislation is.

Although many countries have introduced national bans, America has taken a
piecemeal approach. A number of states, counties and municipalities have
introduced various types of bans, and have enforced them with varying
degrees of rigour.

The problem with this, say Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, economists at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, is that smoking bans seem to have been
followed by an increase in drunk-driving and in fatal accidents involving
alcohol. In research published in the Journal of Public Economics, the
authors find evidence that smokers are driving farther to places where
smoking in bars is allowed.

The researchers analysed data from 120 American counties, 20 of which had
banned smoking. They found a smoking ban increased fatal alcohol-related car
accidents by 13% in a typical county containing 680,000 people. This is the
equivalent of 2.5 fatal accidents (equivalent to approximately six deaths).
Furthermore, drunk-driving smokers have not changed their ways over time. In
areas where the ban has been in place for longer than 18 months, the
increased accident rate is 19%.

The findings, say the pair, are consistent with the suggestion that smokers
are driving farther to alternative places to drink. This may be because they
are driving to bars with outdoor seating, or to bars which are not enforcing
the smoking ban.

Another explanation is that some smokers are "jurisdiction shopping" to
places where they may puff. Accident rates can be especially high where
border-hopping to still-smoky bars is possible. Accidents in Delaware county
in Pennsylvania increased by 26% after the next-door state of Delaware
introduced a smoking ban in 2002. Similarly, when Boulder county banned
smoking, fatal accidents in Jefferson county, between Boulder county and
Denver, went up by 40%. How this weighs up against the long-term health
effects of smoking bans is unclear. But it serves as a warning to
well-meaning legislators.

The Fed Gets Into Spamming

This is an interesting article regarding the Fed's new program to send
alert text messages to mobile phones:

FCC builds giant text spam engine for terror warnings

jst 2 let u knw, there's an @ak pl& on d USA l8r 2day

By Bill Ray
<http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2008/04/10/fcc_text_
warnings/> → More by this author
<http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Bill%20Ray>

Published Thursday 10th April 2008 11:57 GMT

The Federal Communications Commission is set to announce the launch of a
national alert system, using text messaging and other mobile technologies to
tell Americans when to panic.

The system will be announced on Wednesday, according to both CNN
<http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/09/technology/fcc_cell_phone_alert/index.htm?s
ection=money_latest> and USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2008-04-08-fcc-emergency_N.htm> .
Carriers will be asked to opt in, while customers can opt out if they wish.
CNN reports that all the major US carriers are signed up to the plan, at
least in concept.

The idea is that a federal agency, as yet unnamed, will be given the
password to the biggest mobile spamming engine ever created, and told to
only use it in an emergency. They will use the system to let people know
when there's a terrorist attack, ideally beforehand but more likely just
afterwards, or a natural disaster, with the same caveat.

If the system gets over-used then punters can opt out of receiving more
messages, and carriers will also be able to withdraw from the system.

Assuming the agency responsible can be discouraged from false alarms then
the idea makes some sense, though it could be susceptible to feature creep;
CNN reports that the same agency will also pass on Amber Alerts.

The Amber Alert system operates across the US and serves to let local media,
and interested citizens, know when a child has been abducted. A similar
system is being considered for use across Europe, endorsed by the parents of
Madeleine McCann. Despite the low number of abductions they are emotive
events, even when the "abductee" turns out to be hiding at a relative's or
friend's house.

Setting up such alert systems is expensive, and one should be careful of any
law named after a person (as the Amber Alert system is), as its enactment
may be driven emotionally rather than based on cool assessment of the
benefits. (r)