While I really dislike tobacco, I can't help thinking that the people backing this move are deluded—did the (failed) US experiment with Prohibition of alcohol pass them by completely, or the equally failed war on drugs?

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@TindrasGrove @cstross we did that in 2007. It has made a difference.
Although it's not banned in private homes for the most part, most shared living areas will have restrictions in place (mainly because people have to work there and the major reason we were able to pass it was via protecting workers' health and not the 'personal freedoms curtailed' angle).

I had a great many Internet arguments with people about this around that time.

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@cstross @jonpsp heroin doesn't have huge, obscenely wealthy and politically powerful companies behind it like Tobacco. Another key difference. And heroin (not with a fucking e, phone!!) has never been a socially acceptable habit.

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@noodlemaz I know that. I still think it's going to fail because from the PoV of the under-age it *is* prohibition.

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@noodlemaz @jonpsp I think you're wrong about heroin not having huge and obscenely wealthy backers. (I suspect a lot of drugs money goes into keeping narcotics illegal precisely because that keeps prices artificially high.)

Also when the first misuse of drugs act arrived in the 1920s (here in the UK) 50-60% of the heroin and cocaine addicts initially registering in the UK were doctors and pharmacists. So much for "socially respectable".

[paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange]

@cstross

yeah... i'll predict much more prevalence of even more unsafe products...

the human race is really bad at learning from history.

"those who ignore history doom the rest of us to reliving it..."

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@cstross @jonpsp coke is a different ballgame, city wankers swim in it. And a lot of groups of wealthy/twatty people.

I'm not saying drug cartels don't exist. But they don't have the same acceptability, reach and organisation as Tobacco has and has had. It's a uniquely awful beast.

If we compare Tobacco to anything, I think it can only really be Oil.

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@noodlemaz @jonpsp Oh, the tobacco industry learned from big oil, and vice versa. (And AI and cryptocurrency grifters have both adopted the same techniques.)

[realcainmosni@mastodon.me.uk]

@cstross Not at all well thought through, as a policy.

[mastodonmigration@mastodon.online]

@cstross

Precisely right. What works is education not regulation. Which is why we need more education about the AI mental health crisis.

How to smoke

I used to love to smoke. If it weren’t for the whole lung cancer, emphysema, death thing, would you recommend smoking?

(buttondown.com)

[lazarou@mastodon.social]

@cstross I feel the same.

Also moves like that make the Legalisation of Weed and the others further away, which is the wrong way.

[billysmith@social.coop]

@noodlemaz @TindrasGrove @cstross

Also, remember in Scotland, the plan was to ban smoking on the public streets, but then the Fossil Fuel lobbies argued against that, as if the ban went through, and people still died of respiratory problems, they would find out where the problems really came from...

[michaelgemar@cosocial.ca]

@cstross There are some major differences. Most people who drink aren’t alcoholics, whereas most smokers are literally addicted — there is not the same market of “casual” users.

And most research I’ve seen suggests that if people don’t start smoking young, they won’t pick it up.

Finally, it’s easier to make booze illegally in small batches than it is to grow and cure tobacco, so illegal tobacco requires a lot more effort to pull off.

[photo55@mastodon.social]

@cstross I'd not like to call Nicotine safe, but the worst things about tobacco revolve around the smoke.

[noodlemaz@mstdn.games]

@BillySmith @TindrasGrove @cstross I mean it's both, but yes it shows their evil quite neatly.

[colmdonoghue@mastodon.ie]

@cstross yet the UK banned handguns, parquat and leaded petrol and they all worked, no mafiaesque avoidance schemes

[flippac@types.pl]

@cstross And retailers who have to surveill for precise ages

[ferricoxide@blahaj.zone]

@TindrasGrove@infosec.exchange @cstross@wandering.shop @noodlemaz@mstdn.games

The one thing that they never did was pass legislation that said something like, "if you continue to smoke after <DATE>, insurance companies can refuse to cover you for smoking-related healthcare expenses". I mean, would probably simply result in a lot more people lying about whether they smoke or not.

[mavu@mastodon.social]

@cstross this is really tough.
Prohibition is mostly pointless. There are certainly fewer people who consume whatever substance it covers. But never zero, and it criminalizes a subtantial number of people.
Free sale is also not great, especially if adverts are allowed.
Big problem is the socialized cost of healthcare from addictive substance abuse.
Maybe sell them, no ads, and tax calculated to cover expected healthcare and other costs they produce, and used exclusively to cover that?

[fishidwardrobe@social.tchncs.de]

@cstross drinking the devil's advocat for a moment: legal tobacco benefits three or four massive corporations with a long history of nasty behaviour.

[artbrew@mastodon.art]

@cstross
I don't think the youngsters will bother to purchase higher priced illegal tobacco. The thing about it unlike most other drugs is there is no fun involved in using it. You don't get a high from it. You just get a sense of relief and a bit of calmness if you're already addicted. Why would they pay over the odds for something that gives little back? Cannabis gets you stoned and is fun, alcohol gets you drunk and it's fun. I can see some wanting to because it's naughty but most won't