What if... where to draw the line?

....

There is an important difference to note. Drinking can kill you, but moderate drinking will usually not have that effect. Eating sugar can cause diabetes, but needs not, and in moderate doses will not. On the other hand, the effects of smoking are, although denied by the tobacco industry for obvious reasons, undeniably always desastrous. There is no threshold, no harmless dose, and there is no beneficial dose either.

....

There is a hint here that there is more sympathy towards drinkers and brutal analysis towards smokers. Reminds me of the UK government's attitude - they brutally continue to over-tax tobacco and seriously under tax alcohol, their excuse for under taxing alcohol - to help pulp businesses

As for the organ donation thing, in most countries, its not automatic - you have to opt-in, and many people are too young (or too horrified) to think about their death so don't bother to opt-in

It's really a shame that most people already take for granted that a smoking is bad. Propaganda machine has apparently succeeded in his plan. Smoking ban has a completely different reason. Do your research before commenting and participation in the implementation of someone else's agenda. Tobacco is not bad except additives that are added with cigars. Tobacco is a very useful and healthy plant.

In fairness, statistics show that tobacco is really harmful to human health. So its not just about propaganda. Having said that, you are partly correct- there is some contradictions involved.

Firstly, developing lung cancer from tobacco is all about probability. There are people who are genetically predisposed to cancer, and so as my mum usually says- lots of people who develop lung cancer have never smoked and there are many chain smokers who are still going strong in their 90s. But lots of people are in between these extremes such that generally smoking will increase the chances of many people developing lung cancer. So even though it's safer not to smoke, chain smoking doesn't guarantee you will develop lung cancer

Secondly, and this is a very simple one anyway..., why won't the governments ban tobacco like they do class A drugs if it were that harmful? I haven't done the maths but to reverse the medical cost, then the best thing would be to ban tobacco, rather than heavy taxation. But the secret is (at least here in the UK) tobacco tax is an easy target for the government to raise money. Its a cunning partnership between the tobacco industry and the government, while the industry makes tobacco as addictive as possible, knowing the power of addiction is strong, which makes smokers prioritize their last money on cigarettes. And so as the government raises taxes smokers are less likely to quit or even slow down, thus raising money for the government. But the trick is to raise the taxation rate so that it far exceeds the medical liability of smokers. Unfortunately so far they are succeeding

It's really a shame that most people already take for granted that a smoking is bad. Propaganda machine has apparently succeeded in his plan. Smoking ban has a completely different reason. Do your research before commenting and participation in the implementation of someone else's agenda. Tobacco is not bad except additives that are added with cigars. Tobacco is a very useful and healthy plant.

Citation Needed.