I have to agree with you. Smoking, especially smoking cigarettes, is much worse for health than alcohol. But alcohol, according to your link, is the third most preventable cause of death. That's pretty significant. So, if we're going to ban tobacco, why not alcohol too. Of course, that's been tried and didn't work out so well.
It's pretty hard to keep people from abusing something that gives them pleasure, and nicotine does that. So do other things like marijuana and amphetamines. People will find a way. Sucking on hallucinogenic toads? So now we have e-cigarettes that produce a fog of propylene glycol. What does that do to lungs? There is some evidence that heat causes it to break down into toxic chemicals.
How far do we want to go with a nanny state? Is there a basic human right to abuse oneself? How about the old guy who likes a pipe outdoors after dinner? Do we deny him that little pleasure because others abuse tobacco? Sure, people who don't want to breath tobacco smoke should be protected from it, and we've done pretty well on that. Drugs that cause people to endanger others? Yes, they need to be controlled.
I suspect that the money saved by making tobacco illegal would be partially offset by the costs of enforcement. Cigarette smoking has gone way down from what it used to be. Some of that is no doubt due to higher prices and a ban on advertising. But, I think much of it is just a matter of educating people about the risks. Cigarettes used to be considered something cool people do. That's no longer true. Maybe we should just let cigarettes die a natural death.
