So yesterday I read something from another prosecutor, Tom Kimball, who's a DUI trainer in a nearby jurisdiction. While trapped at a grocery store for a while, he did an informal seat belt use survey, observing a hundred successive drivers in an hour and a half. He counted 79 wearing seat belts and 21 not, which is more than I would expect down there.
The interesting thing is that he also counted smoking, and saw a dozen puffing the Indian weed. But here's the thing- four were belted, and eight were driving unprotected- that's 5% of belted drivers and 38% of the naked ones.
He wondered if there was a correlation. No kidding, Mr. Holmes.
I've long thought that, now, smoking is the province of the addicted or the stupid. To back this up, I observe that most cigarette advertising is placed where it will be observed by the least clever and energetic parts of our population.
Lottery tickets, too.
If you doubt that, compare the quantum of tobacco and lottery adverts at a stop-and-rob in a neighbourhood full of Mercedes with one in a housing project.
I know BRILLIANT people who smoke. They are junkies and know it. But the ones with whom I've ridden in cars all belt in. Like Tom, I'm just intrigued by the statistical breakdown.
There's a grant in there someplace. No one will like the result, though.