I think individuals should be able to decide their own habits…
if they want to smoke and drink all they want be it hard liquor, cigarettes or drugs, dangerous sexual behavior, go for it.
on the other hand, don’t expect the government and hence other taxpayers to foot your medical bill when you get lung cancer, lose your liver, or some other medical problem. why should the rest of us be subsidizing for someone else’s lifestyle and mistakes.
and don’t bother or endanger other people’s lives because of your lifestyle. ie don’t drink and drive, don’t smoke in a crowded enclosed area. i think this is one of the few times government needs to regulate for a public health/safety issue where acts of others could affect your lives. I don’t think cigarettes companies should be heavily taxed in order to discourage behaviour. i don’t believe in using taxation to affect choice. it might happen anyways, but its effects should be minimized. however, if governments are going to be footing the bill for medical care and assuming such disease is caused by smokers caused by cigarette products, then maybe that’s preferable to non-smokers subsidizing smokers not that it’s entirely right to blame cigarette companies although if they used nicotine to make addicts of people there might be another claim (arguably this interferes with the consumer’s freedom of choice).
This is different from the govt telling Mcdonalds to put more healthy food. let the people decide (if they can or cannot is another question).
The only area the government should regulate in consumer products is disclosure/labelling although it’s ridiculous to me that companies have to put warning signs/disclaimers on unintended or plainly dangerous use of products eg dont use this electrical appliance while taking a bath. if someone electrocutes himself, hey, that’s one less idiot in the world. but the gray areas of this type of regulation are many.
in the end people have to relearn to be responsible for their own choices. (where choice is possible anyways).