Superiority delusion is a merit-devoid symptom that caused the rise of Academia & Intellectualism of the Left, hence their own self-promotion term "Woke" !
The Conservative "Right" is, or rather was until recently much more merit (example & evidence) based !

"It’s good taxing the indolent habit of cigarette smoking, a major strain on the public health system."

Smokers voluntarily lay down their lives for their country....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1DviQ9mva0

Nobody is forced to smoke. Smoking is a free choice and in a free country, free choice should be protected.

By all means, use the resources of the government to inform people of the dangers they face when they smoke. But that's it. After that its the smokers choice. If they choose to ignore the information, that's their democratic free choice.

But the problem is we have a class of people who think that anyone who makes a choice different to them, is demonstrably wrong and needs to be forced into making the 'correct' choice.

NB- I don't smoke

We saw the same things with the covid hysteria and the vaccine jihads.

We see it with vaping bans based not on facts but on preferences of the credentialed classes.

OF coarse, in the end the government can't ban smoking as an example. The current illegal tobacco wars proves that. The US experience with Prohibition of alcohol likewise proved it but the do-gooder class rarely learns from the past, despite their claims of superior knowledge.

mhaze,

Nobody’s denying that people have the right to make bad choices. The issue is who bears the cost when those choices lead to predictable harm, especially when it’s not just the smoker who suffers, but also the public health system and those around them.

Yes, we inform people. But if it stops there, we’re left footing the bill when they ignore that information. Taxing tobacco or regulating vaping isn’t about forcing people to live correctly, it’s about recognising shared consequences in a shared society.

Framing every public health measure as an assault on liberty is simplistic and dishonest. We already limit choice in all sorts of ways: seatbelts, speed limits, food safety standards. Not because we hate freedom, but because risk doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Also worth noting: railing against “the credentialed classes” while citing democratic values is an odd pairing. Democracy doesn’t mean ignoring expertise. It means weighing it transparently, with accountability. The alternative isn’t liberty. It’s chaos under the guise of principle.

And yes, some have proposed banning smoking outright, or phasing it out over time. But that’s not the substance of most public health policy. Tobacco taxes, plain packaging, and advertising restrictions aren’t prohibition, they’re harm-reduction measures. Comparing them to the chaos of 1920s Prohibition ignores both the scale and intent:

One was a moral panic; the other is a slow, evidence-based attempt to reduce avoidable deaths and costs.

If anything, it’s the do-nothing approach that refuses to learn from history. There’s a big difference between nannying and managing the consequences of risk.

Its the crux of most of these societal issues. Some people think the world would be better if everyone thought like them, and they intend to enforce that. Others think the world would be better if everyone just let everyone else get on with the life they want.

The link I gave for 'Yes Minister' was comedy but the numbers do indeed stake up. Smokers put more into the health system than they take out. But if we are going to force everyone to pay a premium for life style choices that cost the medical system money then where to stop? Obesity costs for the health system are enormous. Perhaps a tax on plus sized clothing? The possibilities are endless.

"railing against “the credentialed classes” while citing democratic values is an odd pairing. Democracy doesn’t mean ignoring expertise."

Credentialled doesn't equal expert

Dear John,

If it was up to me and my personal benefit, then I would utilise every possible moral loophole to justify banning smoking/vaping.

But honestly, I cannot find any such loophole.

The key is your own phrase: "it’s about recognising shared consequences in a shared society."

Had everyone actually agreed on a shared society, then yes, then we could legitimately tell others, "you wanted to be in this society, then you must follow its rules". Fortunately or unfortunately, that's not the case as none of us was asked to freely consent or otherwise to belonging in any big society (such as the one calling itself after this continent, "Australia").

Still, even when one hasn't agreed to have anything to do with you and your society(s), there remains one legitimate recourse to coercion, which is self-defence. Self-defence isn't ideal - a saint would turn his/her other cheek instead, but as we are not yet saints, this is acceptable, mediocre but acceptable.

Yet in the absence of consensual society, anything beyond strict self-defence is unacceptable violence.

You mentioned in one breath three very different issues:
"seatbelts, speed limits, food safety standards".

Speed limits on public roads is clearly a matter of self-defence:
The roads presumably belong to the public (that's a bit vague and questionable, but anyway let's assume that to be the case) and as the public may be present on the roads at any moment, it's OK for them to take such measures in self-defence. Note that there are no speed limits on private roads!

Food-safety standards are similarly acceptable in truly-public places, such as restaurants where the general public is invited and may wish to protect itself from poisoning. However, their imposition is not legitimate within groups of people who never freely consented to belong to the society that imposes these standards.

Finally, enforcing seatbelts in private transport is abusive because not wearing them poses no public threat.
It's perfectly legitimate, however, to tell people: "No seatbelt: if you are injured in an accident, then you pay your own medical bills (or otherwise not admitted to hospital)".