Well, in the Prohibition alcohol was banned for moral reasons. Back then health concerns were relatively minor compared to the temperance movement's emphasis on how it affected behaviour in completely benign ways: like not taking your hat off when you met a lady. Or singing too raucously. This was a time back when radium cough drops were sold. Temperance movement didn't give a damn about people being irradiated as although they killed people, at least they acted "proper".MercenaryCanary said:"Guys, let's ban a substance that is harmful but popular within the population!"
Sure thing, 1920's America!
How could this ever go wrong?
Prohibition era, when crime was rampant and boozed up.
Prohibition failed as it had an unsound moral argument. The crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol were still on the individual, one needed to exercise the same restraint in drinking excessively as containing their anger and urge to steal or commit other crimes.
Who would describe the ban of asbestos in building as a form of "prohibition"? Or the ban of CFC gses? Or leaded fuel based cars? Or the sale of radiation laced foodstuffs?
But those are things that cannot exist safely outside a special containment facility. Tobacco by itself is pretty harmless. The problem is people foolish enough to set it on fire and inhale the smoke from it. Nicotine is not inherently alluring, only once you start inhaling burning tobacco in sufficient quantities.
I think it is unnecessary to ban tobacco, just convince enough people to not smoke.