Non-Smoking Kills
By Ocean on Apr 14, 2008 in Articles of Interest
An interesting article by The Economist on how smoking bans have increased the mortality rate in certain states. This shows how a ban cannot work when it is only for limited areas, as well as how deadly unforeseen consequences can be. I also think this argument could be extended to illustrate the inefficiency of gun laws, when applied on a state by state basis, but that’s probably a can of worms they didn’t want to open for their short piece.
Utility:
(3 votes, average: 8.33 out of 10)
Loading ...
(3 votes, average: 8.33 out of 10) Loading ...
I agree with you in principle, but I wonder if this is the best example given: isn’t the problem one of driving while drunk rather than where a person can smoke? Drunk driving is a crime, driving further to be able to smoke is not a plausible excuse. Can it therefore be a plausible cause?
Rebecca | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply
I’m not sure if this article should be taken too seriously. If anything, it’s only good for a few ‘hmmm’ moments and an excuse to go have a cigarette - for those of us/you who smoke. I mean, sure the correlation is there, but keep in mind that just because two occurrences are highly correlated doesn’t necessarily mean that one action leads to another. Oh, the joy I would have if I could use that rationale…
Jason | Apr 15, 2008 | Reply
Fewer places to smoke means people drive further to smoke in bars, which means there is more time spent drunk driving on the way home. No one said it’s an excuse, but it is a cause. So I’d disagree with Jason on this. Here you have both correlation and causation.
Ocean | Apr 16, 2008 | Reply
We might as well start arguing the butterfly effect/chaos theory:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe the horse was lost;
For want of a horse the rider was lost;
For want of a rider the battle was lost;
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
Look! There’s a direct correlation between the want of a nail and the loss of the kingdom! Ergo, the kingdom had to have been lost due to the want of a single nail!
/sarcasm
Jason | Apr 16, 2008 | Reply
This is assuming:
A) One last vital nail was needed for the shoe
B) One last vital shoe was needed for the horse
C) One last vital horse was needed for the rider
D) One last vital rider was needed for the battle
E) The battle was vital for the survival of the kingdom
F) The adversaries in battle were not missing any nails, shoes, horses or riders
G) The battle could not be delayed for the vital supplies
H) Ceteris Paribus
I’d say to an economist this would sound plausible. Anyone else would have better things to do.
Ocean | Apr 16, 2008 | Reply