WI no smoking

What would have been the consequences if people just never developed a taste for smoking (or chewing) tobacco, and it became no more popular than smoking opium?
 
For starters, later development of the US South, resulting in the early slave trade being smaller (so less slaves in the Americas). By the 21st century, it means billions of people will live longer and somewhat healthier lives. Modern advertising and PR will be delayed slightly.
 
What would have been the consequences if people just never developed a taste for smoking (or chewing) tobacco, and it became no more popular than smoking opium?
The most important thing, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that between 2005 and 2012 I'd be working in a different company because smoking cessation would not be a (payable) issue. Which (me working somewhere else), of course, may produce endless butterflies. :closedtongue:
 
For starters, later development of the US South, resulting in the early slave trade being smaller (so less slaves in the Americas).
Definitely. Without tobacco, the Virginia Colony might have sputtered out altogether. With a hot and muggy climate, hostile natives, and no economic incentive, England might not have colonized the South until the late 17th century, and that would come with a lot of butterflies.
 
Without smoking, my wife's parents would probably be alive and well.
Their passive smoking may not have seriously impaired my wife's health or significantly shortened her life.
(RIP)

Hence my barely-contained rage when ijits suggest that e-cigs are allowed where cigs used to be, such as on buses & trains, in restaurants etc etc...
 
Definitely. Without tobacco, the Virginia Colony might have sputtered out altogether. With a hot and muggy climate, hostile natives, and no economic incentive, England might not have colonized the South until the late 17th century, and that would come with a lot of butterflies.
I agree that without the cash crop that the Virginia and the other colonies might fail to be economically successful...but on the other-hand - cotton might have the South peter by.
 
I agree that without the cash crop that the Virginia and the other colonies might fail to be economically successful...but on the other-hand - cotton might have the South peter by.
Cotton would help, in what few places it could be economically grown prior to the spread of the cotton gin. Indigo and rice will be the mainstays of the Southern economy until then. Tobacco would be that "noxious Indian weed" which not many people would mess with.
 

Vuu

Banned
Lemme make that a simple PoD:

European trader arrives in a native village. Is offered tobacco.

"Eyy Mr. Moneygrubbing Trader, try this?"

"What is?"

"[whatever they called it], good stuff"

*tries to smoke*

"man what the hell this tastes like bullshit"


He don't like it, news spreads and nobody is interested. Maybe becomes babbys first weed modern day
 
People will have their vices, of that I am quite convinced. If not tobacco, then it'll be something else. No shortage of options. A nice cold cocaine-infused tonic, anyone? Of course, it'll have major effects on regions that were economically shaped by the cultivation of tobacco. Others have pointed that out. All I'm saying is: don't expect the world to become healthier, and people to be free of common addiction problems.
 
People will have their vices, of that I am quite convinced. If not tobacco, then it'll be something else. No shortage of options. A nice cold cocaine-infused tonic, anyone? Of course, it'll have major effects on regions that were economically shaped by the cultivation of tobacco. Others have pointed that out. All I'm saying is: don't expect the world to become healthier, and people to be free of common addiction problems.
Cigarette smoking almost singlehandedly turned lung cancer from a relatively rare cancer into a very common cancer. The increase in heart disease is also pretty notable. Prior to that, the more common ways of using tobacco via chewing tobacco, cigars, etc., while certainly not healthy, were definitely healthier than cigarette smoking.

I don't know what other drug might replace nicotine. Coca is an interesting idea, but coca tea doesn't seem to be particularly worse for you or more addicting than caffeine, and even with something like coca wine, the problem is the ethanol in the wine rather than the coca. I don't think cannabis would replace tobacco, since it affects the brain differently, and even then, cannabis doesn't seem any worse or addicting than tobacco.

Addictions, sure, that won't go away. But I doubt people would drink more alcohol just because they don't also smoke.
 
I wonder: if cigarettes weren't invented, would chewing, cigars, and pipes have less of a stigma today or would tobacco die a quicker death without the popularity and addictiveness of cigarettes?

Might the Upper South have ended up siding with the Union in the Civil War if there was no crop to develop a plantation culture around and therefore slavery is confined to the cotton states?
 
I wonder: if cigarettes weren't invented, would chewing, cigars, and pipes have less of a stigma today or would tobacco die a quicker death without the popularity and addictiveness of cigarettes?
Chewing tobacco might still have its stigma, but cigars and pipes were the traditional way of smoking so they could still be seen as fashionable.

Not sure how you could stop cigarettes from being invented though. They were hand-rolled for a long time, and then later the production was industrialised with the Bonsack machine, but I think someone would have come up with something like that eventually.
 
Last edited:
Hence my barely-contained rage when ijits suggest that e-cigs are allowed where cigs used to be, such as on buses & trains, in restaurants etc etc..
In one episode of Two Broke Girls, a person makes the same argument to Max (namely, it uses batteries). She responds "so does my vibrator but I'm still not allowed to use it in public".

As to another point, people would have more money to spend on some other bad habit (probably). Not sure what cigarette/tobacco products prices are like eksewhere, but where I'm from they're taxed twice (once for normal VAT and once for "sin tax" - same as alcohol) which means that for a pack of six cigarettes you pay the same as for five loaves of ordinary bread.

My condolences about your wife and her parents.
 
Cigarette smoking almost singlehandedly turned lung cancer from a relatively rare cancer into a very common cancer. The increase in heart disease is also pretty notable. Prior to that, the more common ways of using tobacco via chewing tobacco, cigars, etc., while certainly not healthy, were definitely healthier than cigarette smoking.

I don't know what other drug might replace nicotine. Coca is an interesting idea, but coca tea doesn't seem to be particularly worse for you or more addicting than caffeine, and even with something like coca wine, the problem is the ethanol in the wine rather than the coca. I don't think cannabis would replace tobacco, since it affects the brain differently, and even then, cannabis doesn't seem any worse or addicting than tobacco.

Addictions, sure, that won't go away. But I doubt people would drink more alcohol just because they don't also smoke.
Sorry for the late reply. Concerning cwewing tobacco when compared to smoking it: do keep in mind that while the latter causes lung cancer and throat cancer, the former also causes throat cancer and cancers in the mouth and jaw. I'm not at all sure it's better, although - to be fair - it doesn't have the horrible side-effect of "second-hand smoking".

My point is mostly, as you do agree, that people will always find something to be addicted to. I've always thought that addiction, to a great degree, develops because people use certain substances to deal with stresses in their lives. Simply put: people use drugs to "take the edge off", or to keep pepped up when tired, or to relax when stressed out etc. etc. -- since all those causes aren't going to go away, people will just find something "for it". If not tobacco, then something else. Like they chew Qat in the horn of Africa, or have that root they chew in Indonesia (which also causes cancer, by the way). There's always something.


Not sure what cigarette/tobacco products prices are like eksewhere, but where I'm from they're taxed twice (once for normal VAT and once for "sin tax" - same as alcohol) which means that for a pack of six cigarettes you pay the same as for five loaves of ordinary bread.
It's very much like this in the Netherlands. I've always found it a highly dubious system, because it relies on completely arbitrary standard of what poluticians consider "bad for you", but alas-- just as people will find a way to use some substance no matter what, governments will find something to tax no matter what. ;)
 

elkarlo

Banned
Smoking seems to scare off mosquitos. So it might have a health impact in malaria zones. I'd rather die of cancer circa 45 than have complications of malaria at a much younger age.

Also in the 1920w peoppe smoked to control their weight. I wonder if we'd see people get fatter earlier
 

elkarlo

Banned
Actually chewing tobacco is much safer than smoking and inhaling it. Sweden has pushed using snus a tobacco you, I believe snort. As it has far fewer affects than traditional smoking. To say that chewing tobacco is as harmful as cigarettes is actually just a myth pushed by anti tobacco imho. Yes it's bad, but there are degrees in harm
 
I think cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, will appear anyway later into the 19th and 20th century.

But to answer your question, a lot less people will die from cancer, as far as I know, cancer mainly appears because of old age in some people, and excessive smoking,(though even small amount of smoking will raise your chances of getting cancer and lower your quality of life by your 40s).


Take for example lung cancer, a cancer that is relatively rare by it’s own, is the second most common cancer because of smoking.

So for conclusion the world will be a better place, and I say this as a smoker myself.
 
very much like this in the Netherlands. I've always found it a highly dubious system, because it relies on completely arbitrary standard of what poluticians consider "bad for you", but alas-- just as people will find a way to use some substance no matter what, governments will find something to tax no matter what. ;)
Governments need money too, and taxing "luxury" items is a good way to get it. Although in my opinion, more money for the government just means more for them to put in their pockets
 
If we can ban second-smoking what are really good arguments for a Governement to ban smoking,Has a Governement then the right to interfer in somebody's personal life?
 
Top