>Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Sure but that's not really

>Being banned from consuming a substance because your body no longer belongs to you but rather is property of the state is not fine. Sure but that's not really what's being discussed here right now, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that this has happened. From another perspective, governments are trying to do their best to protect their citizens from the malign interests of private entities who sell dangerous products. I agree that banning tobacco entirely would be too coercive, though. Apparently Bhutan is the only country where tobacco is illegal. I understand your concerns with regards to prohibition but I think this is a slippery slope argument without a better example or a more compelling explanation.