The modern day Prohibitionists, and even tobacco control advocates more generally, used to frequently laud the example of Bhutan back in 2004 and for many years after. And yet now? Almost nobody talks about them anymore. So why is that?
Bhutan, the only country in the 21st century that had completely banned tobacco across the board, has failed so miserably in doing so (thanks to the black market and international smuggling, and despite very stiff penalties too) that they ended up reversing their ban in 2021, largely out of fear that rampant cross-border smuggling would.... increase the spread of Covid. Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up! This should really be a cautionary tale for anyone contemplating any new (old) forms of Prohibition, whether for tobacco or otherwise.
And it's not like Bhutan is a historical anomaly either, as outright bans on tobacco products have been tried (and failed) before repeatedly for centuries in various countries, including right here in the USA at the state and local level from the late 19th century to 1927.
So much for the illusion of control.
Twenty-One Debunked has repeatedly discussed in depth the quasi-special case of tobacco/nicotine and how highly nuanced it is. And yes, it is far more nuanced than either side of the debate likes to admit. Tobacco/nicotine straddles the fine line between soft and hard drugs, is both subtle and dangerous at the same time, and thus ultimately defies and transcends any simplistic solutions like "just ban it already!"
If alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all legal, and you had to pick ONE of those to ban, tobacco would logically have to be it, hands down. It is, by far, the least useful and most harmful (and deadly) overall of the three. It is the ONLY currently legal product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it. It's thus not even a contest. Additionally, it is NOT a truly recreational drug, and its inherent addictiveness actually tends to subtract from one's overall freedom and autonomy rather than enhance it. And the majority of those who use it ultimately regret doing so. That said, it still doesn't follow that a complete ban is a wise idea, in theory OR in practice.
It is worth noting that even those who were serious about phasing out tobacco in the West have been, until very recently, gradual and gingerly about it.
Not only is this a cautionary tale regarding tobacco, but also by extension other substances and vices as well. It is a historical truism that punishing the many for the excesses of the few has NEVER ended well at all, and ultimately does far more harm than good. Those folks advocating new (old) forms of Prohibition need to be VERY careful what they wish for!
It bears repeating: vices are NOT crimes. Any confusion of the two invites trouble. The late, great Lysander Spooner was a wise man indeed, and we ignore his timeless advice at our peril.
As President Ronald Reagan famously said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction". And in light of the past few years alone, that quote doesn't really seem to be an exaggeration.
UPDATE: Apparently according to Wikipedia, Turkmenistan (since 2016) and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (since 2022) have also banned tobacco. Though the former has not fully gone into effect yet, and the latter is not exactly a good role model.
