You are conflating two different problems here imo - Choosing one but not (mostly equally harmful) another thing to restrict, and government banning something as a way of restricting freedom Regarding first one - I don’t are a problem here, everything else can be addressed after this one, but even if it’s not, it’s still a net positive, I don’t understand your argument here naming this policy bad because it doesn’t do all or nothing Regarding ban as a restriction of freedom - banning something just lies on the far scale of taxing something - i.e. the more you tax something, the less people can afford it (tax is always passed onto consumer), so at some point only rich people can afford to smoke which is even worse than ban imo There’s a benefit in additional money from taxes, sure, but tobacco is already taxed quite a lot so this is nothing revolutionary, and the more taxes on something the less revenue from it at some point (considering that less and less people can afford it) Banning it from the certain age and not for everyone is obviously to not make existing smokers suffer and make younger population healthier Some things just should be banned, like murder for example, when there’s no benefit from that thing to anyone at all You would agree that products with lead or coke in in should stay banned and not be sold, right?

Yeah instead of genociding people in other countries they genocide people in their country