What's weird is the way the government decides to deliver these messages. Why do government responses have to be framed as "arm over your shoulder" do-gooder d

What's weird is the way the government decides to deliver these messages. Why do government responses have to be framed as "arm over your shoulder" do-gooder decisions rather than evidence-based decisions when there's already lots of data? IDK, maybe the "think of the children!" line and knee-deep assumptions of helping disadvantaged groups is all that's needed to stir government policy vs analyzing perspectives from a scientific approach. I mean, it's still good overall, and it's a net benefit to reduce long-term smoking.