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20th century, where it felt out of date to many people.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?