Oh, you can bet your ass that prohibition of alcohol again is coming far sooner than 20-40 years from now. Newsflash, everybody dies! The government should have no rights to infringe on what people want to consume. This is a slippery slope. I am not pro-cigarette here but pro choice of drug consumption. That, and the distinguishing of cigars and pipe tobaccos from that of what a cigarette really is, which is not natural tobacco. Cigarettes are 50% "mother's liquor," which is ground up floor scrap and stem tobacco parts into a nice little puree with added re-uptake nicotine boosting agents. This is then dried into sheets and chopped up to look like ribbons of tobacco. It is not smoking tobacco naturally. Leave the natural cigars and pipe tobaccos in another category. The FDA is going to target all tobacco cleverly as if it's all the same when they know very well that it is not.

You think all these Addy popping, Vyvanse downing, benzo-calming programmers aren't dying way earlier? You are fooling yourselves so hard.

Ha, I've seen that clip and really enjoyed it. I also am pretty sure I saw some research that says that's not true but I've just been searching the last few mins and can't find it. I have a bunch of files from when I was working in the field that I really need to sort through.

But yeah, I also am concerned about how safety driven we are for things and unwilling to take risks as a culture but that might be recency bias because I'm reading "Where is my flying car?" and they basically make the same point about the regulatory state stymieing innovation in the name of safety (often for absurd things like nuclear)

It's really difficult to come up with good statistics, because of the number of things one can factor in. Tobacco industry in-country producing, or it's imported for example (total cost of cigarette smoking)? How many jobs directly, how many secondary (marketing, product chain, the news stand which sells them). How to factor in second-hand smoking exactly? Are smokers more likely to consume other drugs, if so, why? Because they have a tendency to try, or smoking causes them to try? How do you factor in that? How do you even "measure" that?

With alcohol: how to factor in violence due to alcohol? How much less police incidents Friday / Saturday evening due to less alcohol? But what about people maybe going out less than before, or spending less money when doing so (will they pay the same prize for drinks if there's no alcohol involved)? What about sports betting and gambling industry (where it's legal)? How will it affect illegal drug use (we've been through that, but it's been long enough for people to say "well, it was different than").

Even the death statistic is tough to do. "Pre-mature death due to smoking", maybe the person also was overweight and had diabetes, how do you estimate how long this person would have lived, if they didn't smoke?

In every step of the way is the possibility for variance. Social sciences, from sociology, to psychology, to health, is such a minefield. Medicine of course is half and half. You can do a lot of stuff on the level of biology, chemistry, hard science in a lab, but health benefits/damages are "observed" in practice (observational studies). And the number of problems there are just ... huge.

I could go on and on and on...