Sure.
Have you ever READ the pro-(and pre-)Prohibition literature? There wasn’t going to be a drop of alkyhol left in the United States by 1930, and what’s more, no one would care.
That’s not fringe stuff. That’s Senators, Governors, high officials, religious and labor leaders, Henry Ford, hundreds of others. Take it away, and it won’t be a problem ever again.
Sure, but they expected everyone to go dry- cold turkey. What we’re proposing is everyone go to a alternative that still feeds the addiction- or quit.
Here’s a newsflash for you: alcohol is not the same as nicotine. In the same vein, neither are the delivery systems. According to the CDC and most other places I’ve seen, around 70% of smokers would like to quit. So your earlier caveat of who it might work for turns out to be the majority.
Okay. I have no horse in the race, only more of a sense of social history than some here. If you want to believe vaping will spell the end of tobacco use, I’ll be in the bleachers cheering - I hate the stuff.
As a long time smoker I always said I would vote in favor of prohibition. As an addictive harmful drug with only subtle rewards there is no way in hell food and drug should allow it. Us smokers would be pissed but get over it quickly enough.
I don’t believe tobacco would stand a chance if put to a vote, a federal law should control it not state.
:rolleyes: Yeah, thanks for telling us about alcohol prohibition. Had no idea that was a thing that happened.
If you mean that the smoking and chewing of tobacco will come to an end, the answer would be - No. You can grow tobacco in your backyard.
Trying to legalize the smoking of merry-ju-wanna at the same time they’re trying to outlaw the smoking of tobacco is absurd. What are they going to claim? That smoking is bad for you? Oh, wait…
FYI - if something is illegal, there is a market for it. If you tell someone they can’t have something, they’re going to want it even more than before.
Maybe you prefer to reinvent the wheel but studying past experience could save a lot of time and trouble. Not everyone is aware of the trials and tribulations of prohibition.
Works great with methadone. What could go wrong?
Yeah, everybody’s heard of it and most people have a very simplified notion of what actually happened in that 20+ year era. It was one of the most complex social experiments ever attempted, and it had absolutely overwhelming support… until it was implemented, at which point it was all but ignored, *except *to drive many people to excess drinking *because *it was illegal but almost wholly safe to flout.
We are already on a steadily declining curve of tobacco use, and there are simpler and gentler shoves to make it as minimal as it can ever be short of some kind of planetary eradication of the weed. A complete end to subsidies, stronger anti-smoking efforts at the under-18s, limiting sales along the lines of state-run liquor stores, etc. Those, and the availability of vapies, will continue to push the numbers down. Without risk of backlash or even mass-scale return of smoking as a “protest.”
Even talking about some kind of ban or prohibition really does bespeak of a Class One violation of Santayana’s Law.
Smoking bans reduce smoking rates. How about we use that wheel when discussing tobacco prohibition?
Eta: tobacco just isn’t the same as other drugs. There’s no buzz, only withdrawal symptoms.
Local and state liquor bans preceded Prohibition. And were largely effective because of the tide of Temperance thinking… and because you could just cross the line and get a beer anyway.
Thinking that workplace and public-area smoking bans would scale up to an absolute ban is… naive.
Anybody who has smoked a cigarette knows this is bullshit. Tobacco is a drug like any other, and used for a similar variety of reasons.
:rolleyes:
Are you trying to reduce smoking rates or are you trying to ban tobacco products?
Arbitrary excessive taxes have reduced the numbers of smokers who buy taxed products. Illegal tax-free products are still available and aren’t counted in the numbers of tobacco products sold or in the numbers of smokers. Plus, the States receive less tax revenue from tobacco products so legislatures raise other fees and taxes to make up the loss.
Sorry buddy. I smoked for 20 years so I’m afraid your statement is the bullshit.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Smoking bans at work lower the number of smokers, not just smokes per day. And despite the fact that when my city banned smoking in bars, all the bars in adjacent municipalities did not see a surge in business because people just “crossed the line”.
Tobacco products are taboo in most prisons these days in the US, for staff and inmates. So of course as contraband it has a high value. So a ban doesn’t eliminate it from those institutions. Likewise, a ban wouldn’t eliminate it from the public at large.
I favor the ban in prisons; since going into effect, we’ve had far fewer asthma exacerbations to deal with.
Not sure the ban would be successful in society in general. Tax and restrict is the best option, IMHO.
I’m reminded of the story related by Kâtip Çelebi in 17th-century Ottoman Istanbul. Tobacco had recently become a widespread habit in Turkey, especially in the army. Then a new anti-tobacco sultan took power, who banned all tobacco smoking by the military on pain of death. Kâtip Çelebi’s zinger to the story is that when the firing squads executed the soldiers condemned for tobacco smoking, the shooters had kept small clay pipes up their sleeves, and as soon as they were done executing they snuck behind the latrine and had a smoke.
Vaping is not fine by me. E-cig vapour doesn’t have the worst of the stuff in cigarette smoke, but I still don’t want people turning their addictive drug into an aerosol and spreading it around.
That would be my opinion as well. Also harsh penalties and good enforcement for underage sales.