WI: Tobacco Prohibition

America has at any time banned or has considered banning any number of substances. One great big blind spot, likely because of the smoke getting in the way, has been tobacco smoking. Cigarettes, cigars, chew, and the other many variations have become considered a bad habit, but it was never banned. This, despite horrible health effects worse than alcohol, which they banned, and worse than any number of soft illicit drugs, which have remained banned with extreme prejudice and taboo. America has never stopped smoking. However, what if there were tobacco prohibition at some point in this country?
 
Horrendous levels of violence greatly eclipsing both Prohibition and anything seen during the crack epidemic period. Likely riots in the streets; nicotine addicts would be *really* pissed. Losing that would physically hurt them even worse than lack of alcohol would hurt alcoholics.
 
Horrendous levels of violence greatly eclipsing both Prohibition and anything seen during the crack epidemic period. Likely riots in the streets; nicotine addicts would be *really* pissed. Losing that would physically hurt them even worse than lack of alcohol would hurt alcoholics.

Juarez would make Baghdad look like Wisteria Lane. :p
 
Part of the concept for the thread is the blatant hypocrisy of a Congressman in the 1920s going on about "demon rum", whilst puffing away through a carton of cigarettes in an afternoon, or Joe Friday blasting hippies and how marijuana will destroy your life while smoke fills the interrogation room, and smoking enough cigarettes that he dies of a massive coronary in his early 50s.
 
Juarez would make Baghdad look like Wisteria Lane. :p

It wouldn't happen in Juarez, it would be in the southeast where the ideal tobacco growing territory is. Atlanta and probably most other southern cities would be worse than New York and Chicago in the 1970s.
 
It wouldn't happen in Juarez, it would be in the southeast where the ideal tobacco growing territory is. Atlanta and probably most other southern cities would be worse than New York and Chicago in the 1970s.

I'm figuring that the feds are mostly successful in shutting down domestic production (since tobacco is a little more finicky than cannabis, you can't just set up a grow light op in the basement or grow it on shyte bog soil in city parks in Minnesota) and therefore the supply is mostly coming from LATAM and the Middle East via Mexico.
 
I'm figuring that the feds are mostly successful in shutting down domestic production (since tobacco is a little more finicky than cannabis, you can't just set up a grow light op in the basement or grow it on shyte bog soil in city parks in Minnesota) and therefore the supply is mostly coming from LATAM and the Middle East via Mexico.

I wouldn't say that. The stuff has been grown relatively easily in that climate since the 1600s and takes little effort to process. There will be large grows in the region.
 
America has at any time banned or has considered banning any number of substances. One great big blind spot, likely because of the smoke getting in the way, has been tobacco smoking. Cigarettes, cigars, chew, and the other many variations have become considered a bad habit, but it was never banned. This, despite horrible health effects worse than alcohol, which they banned, and worse than any number of soft illicit drugs, which have remained banned with extreme prejudice and taboo. America has never stopped smoking. However, what if there were tobacco prohibition at some point in this country?

It was almost banned during the height of Prohibitionist power (i.e., when they passed the 18th Amendment). Leading Prohibitionists spoke out against tobacco use, one Prohibitionist wrote something to the extant of "when we finish off alcohol, tobacco is next", and their efforts got many states to pass various tobacco control efforts.

These failed for the reason that Prohibitionist power faded after the 18th amendment passed, the fact that the measures were poorly enforced, and the growing power of the tobacco industry. It really didn't help that Prohibitionist opposition reeked of Victorian moralism to many people, and this was the 20th century, where it felt out of date to many people. Cigarettes (not so much other tobacco products) were viewed as the height of modernity, and the industry knew it, and promoted it as such. World War I also might've helped, where nurses and others passed out cigarettes to American soldiers, General Pershing demanded cigarettes for the Army, etc.

So the best way to make tobacco banned is to get tobacco control latched onto Prohibition to begin with. This won't help Prohibition's case, since states which OTL had strong support like Tennessee also happened to be major tobacco growing states. Early Big Tobacco's influence could weaken Prohibition big time. It's also obvious that tobacco doesn't have the same effect alcohol does on people, since smoking causes nothing like drunken violence, drunken crime, etc. Yes, tobacco was always known to cause bad things, but the science simply wasn't there in the late 19th/early 20th century. The science available was a mixture of what basically led to tobacco control (including Nazi tobacco control) and a bunch of psuedoscience. There isn't anything like the lung cancer epidemic to study like the scientists in the 50s did. The arguments would thus easily be smacked down by the growing power of tobacco companies.

Horrendous levels of violence greatly eclipsing both Prohibition and anything seen during the crack epidemic period. Likely riots in the streets; nicotine addicts would be *really* pissed. Losing that would physically hurt them even worse than lack of alcohol would hurt alcoholics.

Good thing the National Guard exists, and not to mention that would solidify in the public's eye that "wow, it really was a good idea to ban this stuff."

I wouldn't say that. The stuff has been grown relatively easily in that climate since the 1600s and takes little effort to process. There will be large grows in the region.

True enough, and enough corrupt local politicians and police to make sure no one shuts it down. Sure, a tobacco barn is blatantly obvious and emits smoke and that famous smell for miles, but who's gonna do anything about it?
 
Good thing the National Guard exists, and not to mention that would solidify in the public's eye that "wow, it really was a good idea to ban this stuff."

True enough, and enough corrupt local politicians and police to make sure no one shuts it down. Sure, a tobacco barn is blatantly obvious and emits smoke and that famous smell for miles, but who's gonna do anything about it?

Yeah, just like the borderline warfare Prohibition caused did in the end.

People would figure out how to grow it in non-obvious ways. I can tell you as a Northern Californian that people are really, really good at finding ways to grow and process marijuana (another smelly and footprint heavy drug) without anyone catching on.
 
If a Tobacco Prohibition happened today i would be so glad that i kicked that habit a few years ago and don't have to go through withdrawal .
 
Yeah, just like the borderline warfare Prohibition caused did in the end.

People would figure out how to grow it in non-obvious ways. I can tell you as a Northern Californian that people are really, really good at finding ways to grow and process marijuana (another smelly and footprint heavy drug) without anyone catching on.

I was speaking of issues in state and local corruption where the police (working for certain Democratic candidates--this is the "Solid South" era) would confiscate moonshine, and in areas crucial to vote for their candidate for whatever office (anything from county sheriff to national representative), would have campaigners passing out moonshine seized from raids on stills, given to them by the police. This was an observed practice in Tennessee, both in urban and rural areas, at least in the 40s-70s, and I can believe it was practiced in many other places based on how political machines worked.

Although, tobacco cultivation and processing seems more difficult to me than what goes on in California with marijuana. Since aren't most people who are caught growing pot get caught because of the high electricity use caused by the lamps used to grow it? Tobacco processing tends to require the tobacco barn for both cigarette and other forms of tobacco (cigar and chewing tobacco) production. There's also the potential of imported tobacco from Latin America or Africa making up the difference.

It goes without saying that the regions which were a center of moonshining OTL (Appalachia and the US South in general) would also be a center of illicit tobacco production.

But I can't see the American Tobacco Company of J.B. Duke (most famous nowadays as the namesake of Duke University) going down without a fight. Neither the company nor any of its successors after the tobacco trust was broken up into the companies which formed the nucleus of the American portion of Big Tobacco.
 
Top