It's important to remember that people smoke and drink (and use other drugs) because the effects are pleasant -- at least in the short run. True enough, tobacco and alcohol producers and retailers push their products. But people have been using alcohol and various drugs for thousands of years -- again, because we like the effects that drugs can give us.

Tobacco is beyond question a very harmful substance, pleasant effects notwithstanding. Most people who use tobacco become addicted, and one of the pleasant effects that a cigarette delivers is the relief of the next dose of nicotine. Most people who use alcohol don't become addicted, but occasional drinking can still cause problems for people (making a fool of oneself is the least of it).

The problem with many products, not just tobacco and alcohol, is profits benefit from the drive to maximize consumption beyond what is good for people. "Yankee traders" (New England companies) made some huge fortunes selling opiates to the Chinese in the middle of the 19th century. Opiates were as much of a plague then as they are now. But hey... it was very profitable.

To tobacco, alcohol, weed, meth, cocaine, and opiates one can add sugar and fat -- pushed because it is profitable, even if these substances kill people.

[note: sugar and fat are essential; they are not drugs, they aren't addicting. But when they are cheaper than nutritious food, and ubiquitous, they become problematic.]

What it started as a pure enjoyment of bourgeois classes, it rapidly spread around all social classes. Not matter the income of the individual, he or she is able to purchase weed, tobacco, booze or even cocaine. As you explained, those substances cause pleasing and excitement. Probably, I would sound boring but I never used drugs to increase my imagination. I am saying this because some people or music groups have romanticised the use of drugs such as Pink Floyd.

There were always been a big debate on the supply and profits of these substances. It turned out that forbidden them it is not effective at all because when those are illegal the people tend to consume even more (what a paradox!)

As I already commented to @Alkis Piskas, @Vera Mont and @Benj96: I am completely against on how the state makes profits of these "products": I did a brief research and I found out the following information regard the profit on taxation of these substances.
Spain was the fourth state that collected the most for the tax on tobacco products, with a volume of 6,513 million euros. Our country was behind Germany (14,636 million euros), France (14,319 million) and Italy (10,605 million). As regards the special tax on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Spain drops some positions. Specifically, it was the eighth country that raised the most in 2020, with 968 million euros. This time, it was behind France (3,281 million euros), Germany (3,243), Poland (2,942), Sweden (1,613), Italy (1,248), Ireland (1,203) and the Netherlands (1,166).

I'd probably compromise. So long as he's not stinking drunk and not experiencing (or in imminent danger of experiencing) severe health problems and, while he may have an addiction problem, just wants to drink and feel good and is otherwise healthy...

"I'll sell you a few beers (this time?). You know your family is on my ass about this. Don't make my life more complicated and miserable then it already has to be. OK, pal?"

Something like that.

From experience I know if someone wants to drink or do drugs, they'll often find a way. Absent of rehab (institutionalization against one's will), man's gonna do what a man's gonna do they say. It is painful to watch when they have children, though. Perhaps that would be the largest influencing factor of any decision I would or would not make in your scenario.

From an ethical standpoint, naturally yes, it's hard for an intelligent person to watch someone they care about kill themself. The fact it's a small town private shop along with the relationship gives leeway where say for example a big box chain store would not. (You make the sale or you're fired aka the old adage "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway")

As of January, the state tax (where I live) was 3.46 cents per cigarette, or 69.2 cents per package of 20. The city / county (where I live) has an 8% sales tax on most purchases, and the federal government imposes a tax. A pack of Marlboros retails for about $10 or 9 euros. $3.5 of that price is tax.

Tax levels vary a lot by state. The District of Columbia (Washington) taxes $5 per pack; some southern states tax only pennies per pack.

In a quick search, I couldn't find much about tobacco tax revenue by state.

Does prohibition work? It does, to some extent. During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) alcohol consumption was reduced significantly. High taxes tend to reduce smoking, but what really worked was banning -- and enforcing -- smoking in public indoor spaces. No more smoking at work, in bars, restaurants, buses, meetings, etc. The percentage of adults who smoke has fallen roughly from 20% to 11%. In Minnesota the rate of adult smoking is 13%. That is good, but 13% means about 450,000 smokers.

A solid majority of Minnesotans (58%) drink. Of those, about 11% had 7 or more drinks on an occasion. (I would be unconscious if I had 7 drinks in an evening.) Minnesotans drink about 2.86 gallons of ethanol per year.

With respect to ethical dilemmas... If we all looked at ethics in the "big picture" view, many? Most of us? would be compromised to some extent. Most of us are tolerant of smoking, drinking, and at least some recreational drug use, even if we don't like it.

This ad appeared on the page displaying stats on alcohol consumption. Right. What better time to advertise alcohol than when someone is wondering what the stats on drinking are. Nice ad, actually. Cool. I'll have some of that.

Does prohibition work? It does, to some extent. During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933) alcohol consumption was reduced significantly. — BC

Interesting.

Yet, the prohibition led us to another problem: mafia and corruption. If we remove alcohol from bars and liquor stores, it would end up in gangsters' territories, where the cost of each bottle or cigarette would be more expensive and exclusive to get. The prices would rise and fall when they wanted to, and if someone couldn't afford them, he will have ended up being beaten up by thugs. 

On the other hand, we cannot really know if the consumption of alcohol between 1920 and 1933 decreased noticeably, because during those thirteen years, the supply of alcohol was offered by mafia and they tend to be opaque and act in secret.

I would sell him the alcohol because otherwise he risks descending into withdrawal, which can be painful and dangerous depending on the severity of his addiction. I’ve seen people drink Lysol or Isopropyl just to avoid the symptoms.

In my mind the best thing would be to reason with him.

During prohibition the supply chain was cut. The Feds were able to shut down brewing and distilling. There were then 4 sources of alcohol: a) Supplies stored before 1920 (wine cellars, liquor cabinets, and the like; things that wealthier people had). b) Do it yourself wine and beer brewing; this was more or less legal, but not altogether satisfactory, depending on skill c) smuggling. The "bootleggers" (some of whom were mafioso) were unable to bring in very large quantities. d) illegally distilled alcohol--often of very poor quality (if not poisonous).

Speakeasys were not on every corner, and bootlegged alcohol was expensive. A much larger percent of the population was rural in 1920, and rural people were more likely to abstain than urban people.

Yes, corruption was THE major consequence of of prohibition. (Interestingly, though, a positive side affect was a mixing of classes, races, and homosexuals in speakeasys that had not previously been possible. After prohibition there was a crackdown on the wide open socializing that had gone on.)

True enough -- the facts on alcohol consumption during prohibition were hazy. And no, the mafia didn't publish monthly sales figures. But there are enough reports to indicate that consumption did shrink. Not everyone was willing to break the law to get a drink. Illegal alcohol was expensive. Getting alcohol required some social intelligence and inconvenience.

Well, we PERHAPS learned our lesson as far as alcohol goes. Banning public smoking but keeping tobacco legal has worked.

the best thing would be to reason with him — NOS4A2

Reasoning with an alcoholic... hmmm. How well does that usually work?

What we collectively need to do is recognize alcoholism as a disease and not a moral failure. Diseases can be treated and/or managed. The success rate on treatment isn't great, so more emphasis on management and harm reduction,

What if he does not want help?

If he does not want help, then he most likely will neither accept, receive, or benefit from it. He'll remain an alcoholic, and will probably die from alcoholism, directly or indirectly.

We could, of course, restrict refractory alcoholics' social freedom (some sort of institutionalization). There are harm reduction programs where alcoholics are cared for and can continue drinking. I like this approach. It recognizes the inability of some alcoholics to quit drinking without discarding them.

We don't know what to do for people who engage in activities that begin voluntarily, become addictions, then terminal conditions. Alcohol isn't the only addiction. There's also opiates and meth among others. Many people view addiction as an individual's moral failure, just as they view morbid obesity as a moral failure. Humans are prone to moral failure no matter what, so virtue is no protection.

What we collectively need to do is recognize alcoholism as a disease — BC

I think you're insightful. As someone who works in the general area of addiction and mental ill health I would personally choose different wording. I agree 'moral failure' is a useless lens. The term alcoholic isn't commonly used any more. People have an alcohol misuse disorder and it comes in many variations and is definitely not the same for each person.

I'm not an additions academic, but I don't consider alcohol misuse to be a disease, it is an addiction, a behavioural or learned response. It's no different to an addiction to sex or shopping and probably often stems from a reaction to psychological trauma. This is certainly what I have found in the environments and life stories of the hundreds of folk I have worked with.

AA has dominated the language of alcohol use and the disease model is popular with many people from that cultish and sometimes useful organisation. This is a contentious subject because it touches on so many societal debates - personal responsibility, normalcy, recovery, meaning, hope.

I tend to find people may recover if they have meaningful alternatives to get involved in and can reimagine themselves as non-drinkers. This might require new friends and role models and a new job and deliberately acquiring alternative behaviours to the habitual patters they got stuck in. They need to recognise their behavioural triggers. Alcohol misuse is generally the result of a person's problematic relationship with their environment. It is learned behaviour and it can be unlearned, but the person requires a reason to change and personal feelings of hope.

People tend to have a 'career' in substance misuse and it can be a long road for some before change seems appealing. But I have seen people who drank methylated spirits (denatured ethanol) and aftershave come good with support and insight. People with histories of sexual abuse and trauma seem to be the hardest to support as they often have a screaming in their head that never goes way. (Social learning theory is one useful lens we can use to view addiction, but I have no desire to get into a debate about who has this subject mastered; I think we are still learning and have a long way to go.)

The term alcoholic isn't commonly used any more. — Tom Storm

Professionals in a field use less vernacular terms. "Alcoholic" is a one-size-fits-all term, and a "shopping addict" is quite different from the "meth addict" I would imagine.

I tend to find people may recover if they have meaningful alternatives to get involved in and can reimagine themselves as non-drinkers. — Tom Storm

I like that. It's positive.

I've known quite a few alcoholics, ones in recovery as well as men who were busy becoming alcoholic. AA has been helpful to some, but not all. It is at least not part of the commercial treatment industry, which Minnesota has a lot of. Too many of the programs have revolving doors. Clearly some of them are more successful as money makers than as behavior change agents. Maybe 1% of the chronic inebriates were "happy drunks". The rest were miserable.

A couple of phrases I like: "Therapy means change, not adjustment." "He not busy being born is busy dying" Bob Dylan (It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding)

...the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

One of my brothers died from drinking and smoking, and two of his three sons died of alcoholism and drug addiction. My brother was an school art teacher and performed his job adequately. His two sons had a much shorter addiction career. The whole family -- mother, father, and 3 sons, had significant MI issues (probably generational). One of the brothers was addicted to benzodiazepine and alcohol; the other was a heavy drinker and pot smoker. Oddly, the third brother managed to get his life together fairly early on and has led a healthier, happier life. He's in his 60s now.

What if he does not want help? — NOS4A2

The OP stipulates that he's trying to quit, and has his family's support.

a). The alcoholic is trying to quit the addiction and b). That the family wishes they would quit also. — Benj96

If we all looked at ethics in the "big picture" view, many? Most of us? would be compromised to some extent. — BC

Of course we are. It's almost impossible to do the right thing - even when we're sure what that is - every time, or as well as we probably could. But when you know what it is and it's within your power to do it, if you fail to do the right thing, you feel like crap. That's your conscience telling you you could have done better.

I like this attitude I also agree with the "clan interpersonal responsibility" model.

an interesting proposition. However if we are to treat alcoholism as a mental illness or vulnerable state, actively endorsing the purchase of alcohol knowing that they are weak and predisposed to succumbing to that temptation could be seen manipulating their vulnerabilities for profit.

If alcoholism is a compulsive disorder, where the alcoholic has little control over their persuance of the drug, as relief, then those that enable it for their personal benefit could be seen at least as a partial perpetrator of the crime.

.
The increased price may prevent some young people from starting the vice, but it does also encourage illegal trade that circumvents the tax. This kind of legislation is relatively easy to pass in elected bodies, because no party wants to be seen as pro-addiction, and a segment of the voters always wants to see the sinners punished.
7d — Vera Mont

Interesting, but as you said, the demand remains (inherent addiction) so means to circumnavigate government instituted penalties abound. So with regard to the inherent demand (addiction) I think upping the price only adds to the financial stress of an addict and the paradoxic irony is that this stress can compound their coping mechanism (alcoholism).

I think the best approach is not to see addiction as something that needs to be fiscally penalised but rather use the revenue generated by the vice to support recovery. In that sense all taxes from smoking and alcohol could be appropriated to rehabilitation and public health campaigns.

In that way the more of the population that drinks, the more funds are available for deterrence strategies from a support perspective rather than a penal one.

I think upping the price only adds to the financial stress of an addict and the paradoxic irony is that this stress can compound their coping mechanism — Benj96

Equally, it may prompts them to seek help for the addiction, and push their families into the resolve to intervene. I don't think there is enough incentive for illicit cigarette and liquor trade to satisfy the market. The risk of arrest is too high for marginal profit, and if the price is raised beyond a certain point, the bootlegger can't compete with the legitimate vendors. That's why it's also not cost-effective for the government to outlaw soft recreational drugs.

I think the best approach is not to see addiction as something that needs to be fiscally penalised but rather use the revenue generated by the vice to support recovery. — Benj96

That is the standard policy by which such legislation is passed. In Ontario, it's actually only 13%, but we have publicly funded health-care, and smokers and drinkers contribute heavily to the patient-load.

In that sense all taxes from smoking and alcohol could be appropriated to rehabilitation and public health campaigns. — Benj96

A good deal of money has been spent on those, and they didn't work. What did work was some punitive legislation: banning cigarettes from public and work places* and increasing penalties for traffic offences under the influence.

* When I started smoking in the 1960's, a carton of cigarettes cost $3.50 CDN; a pack was the price of three chocolate bars. People smoked everywhere; at their desks, in their cars, in movie theaters, in hospital waiting rooms. Now they don't - and children don't see it to imitate. I didn't enjoy the process, and I still miss the hit, but I'm better off both physically and financially. (Which is just as well, because they've just whapped booze with another tax hike.)

If someone was trying to quit drinking and i was a possible enabler in the continuation of their habit then I would make the sale.

Few months back after the new year a lot of the public places selling alcohol in my town were closed…I bumped into an acquaintance who enjoys his drink but is not an alcoholic in the traditional sense. Anyway after exchanging pleasantries he asked me if I knew any pubs that would be open as most were closed on this particular bank holiday.

Being a knowledgeable and helpful fella that I am I suggested a few places that might be open for business, although not guaranteed.

As we parted ways he said something like Every dirty dog finds his watering hole.