The first good idea to come out of Russia since....ever

[Cashew]

What happened to All Liberal, All the Time BRTD?

Restricting tobacco is liberal. All the first states to implement indoor smoking bans are liberal.

Nope. True liberalism is about expanding freedom, public perception notwithstanding.

[ag]

What happened to All Liberal, All the Time BRTD?

Restricting tobacco is liberal. All the first states to implement indoor smoking bans are liberal.

So, I guess, you are also all for continuing prohibition of marijuana?

Prohibition is an illiberal policy, by definition. Even if that is the one illiberalism many liberals allow themselves.

Note: you could reasonably argue for certain restrictions on indore smoking in public places, because of the externality imposed on others - you will be ballancing the interests of different people, and, up to a point, some restrictions may be reasonable. But once you progress beyond what is essential for the health of those who would be involuntarily exposed, you stop being a liberal, no matter what you think of yourself.

Full disclosure: I am a life-long non-smoker.

[ag]

It is funny, how many people base their attitude towards a product on its typical consumer. Marijuana is more likely to be consumed by "nice types" - it has been unfairly prohibited. Tobacco is more likely to be consumed by somebody I dislike - ban it.

Frankly, these days I find that (even with marijuana still banned), in pracitce I am a lot more likely to be inconvenienced by the smell of the weed, than of tobacco (I happen to dislike both smells, with the exception, perhaps, of that of good pipe tobacco - something which is, in practice, very rare). I have just spent 3 weeks in Florida and in New York: marijuana smell is everywhere now. True, second-hand tobacco smoke does cause cancer - so does car exhaust and many other things out there. And, of course, at this point you are a lot more likely to inhale car exhaust than tobacco. Smoking has already been restricted so much that one barely ever smells a cigarette.  Relax.

And, of course, if you outright ban sales of tobacco you will reproduce all the problems of the war of drugs in a new market. There will now be tobacco cartels supplying the needs. Actually, after a few years tobacco smoking will once again become cool: banned stuff tends to be cool. You really want all that?

Of course, in Russia this is all just a combination of the traditional national desire to address every problem (including that horrible problem that people might actually be enjoying themselves) with a ban and the anticipation of corrupt profits to be obtained from such a ban. But, frankly, is it that different in the US?

[IceAgeComing]

I don't like this idea for lots of reasons - mostly because it'll create a black market for cigarettes and that's not a good thing for lots of reasons. 

Its not something that I'm a big fan of (I have asthma, so generally I try to avoid being around a significant amount of smokers at any one time simply because of that; although most of my friends back home smoke so that can be a challenge) but an outright prohibition is only likely to embolden dealers and similar people.  I think that the best policy is what we're doing back home: a mixture of a good education campaign, easily available services to help people stop smoking publicly funded (a cost-effective policy, the amount that you spend now is saved twenty years down the line) plus policies designed to limit the exposure of the stuff: things like banning any PoS adverts, mandating that shops cover the places that cigarettes or by plain packaging laws.  These are likely to be as effective as pure prohibition is while still allowing people to buy the stuff if they want.  Incidentally those are the terms that I'd legalise cannabis under unless there are studies around which show that there's a significant different in the health results after long term use; even then I think that the first two would be reasonable.