We should move towards the elimination of authoritarianism.
Giving those the right to push their beliefs, no matter how apparently beneficial, cuts human freedoms.
Let people do what they want to do as long as it doesn't harm others. It's not your business otherwise.
The problem is that you have big financial interest from tabacoo (or other) industry that promotes consumption of X and on the other hand you have an under-budgeted health department that will try to spread information and make studies etc. So the average person will be tricked by the gigantic adverting campaigns... my point a person can't do a correct choice when big money companies have the intrest he does the wrong choice.
It's funny you brought up tobacco, since it's a counter-example to your point.
Somehow, even with Big Tobacco putting tons of money towards promotion and an under-funded health department spreading information, we've arrived at a society where a) nobody can deny that tobacco consumption is harmful (and be seen as sane) and b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).
It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.
>>b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).
Sure it's not "as harmful" but a shotgun isn't as harmful as a nuclear bomb. Relative harm isn't important here, it's just "ability to cause harm" and understanding the likelihood that could happen. A car can cause harm, but most people drive safely. Nobody smokes a pack a day for 30 years with ill effects. We're not sure exactly what happens is you vape the equivalent level of just nicotine and additives, but we're pretty sure it's not going to be a good thing.
