Banning cigarettes will work just as well as banning the sale or manufacture of whiskey did 100 years ago.
Or the banning of marijuana, heroin, meth, etc.?
Banning cigarettes will work just as well as banning the sale or manufacture of whiskey did 100 years ago.
Tobacco is not like alcohol. If it were not physically addictive, it would probably have died out a couple of decades ago. Alcohol brings “benefits” that are, frankly, universal. Smoking much less so, by several orders of magnitude.
However, the concept of banning them would disgust me. In a free country, people need to have the right to choose how they handle the available vices, up to the point where it directly affects others. Also, it really should be a local issue. If Mayberry wants to be dry, it should have that right.
And second hand smoke is bad for cats. That is all that has been proven. A LOT of stuff that is no problem for you, your dog or your mice is bad for cats.
I say this as a non-smoker (though I have a cigar on the front deck every six months or so) and cigarette smoke makes me sick. I am in “bar bands” and loved, in the Seattle area, being able to finish a gig without my clothing and equipment stinking. But It should be voluntary. There were clubs that prohibited smoking over ten years ago. They were my favorite places to play.
Now I’m in Kentucky. I pass many tobacco fields on my way to work. A lot of people in my church smoke. Cancer rates are higher here, but not by much. And we are a commonwealth, which means much more control is at the county, rather than state level. It’s why we have both dry and wet counties.
Regarding tobacco production, there is a push here to grow hemp rather than tobacco. However, the FedGov is fighting it because the DEA in their helicopters can’t tell the difference between hemp and Marijuana with their infrared sensors. When growing hemp becomes legal, tobacco production will almost come to a halt here. The hang up is the FedGov and the DEA.