The difference from prohibition is obvious. Taking away an addictive and much-used item from a population who is in full-use mode is entirely different than ne

The difference from prohibition is obvious. Taking away an addictive and much-used item from a population who is in full-use mode is entirely different than never introducing it to a population that has never used it. Banning tobacco for a population with smokers in it is hard and will lead to the same problems as prohibition did. However, the population born in 2010 are as of yet not allowed to purchase tobacco (because, they are 12 years old!), so only a vanishingly small part of them are active smokers. Never letting them purchase tobacco will be a none-change for them, their lives are not changed by this, execept for the healthier. Those few who are bent on becoming smokers, will still do so, but there's no good reason to think there are any significant number of them. The future generations even less so. It should be clarified that the act of smoking won't be prohibited, it is the act of selling tobacco products to someone born after 2010 that would, so there will be some black market for a little while, but it's kinda difficult to get new clients, it's not as addictive or nice a product as hard drugs are..