It’s interesting you mention freedom (well… Not really I suppose as this is the topic of the thread at hand).
There appears to be a distinct correlation between a countries restrictive nature on vice and the level at which civil liberties are upheld and valued.
This isn’t always the case as outliers/exceptions exist. I don’t believe this to be a byproduct of tobacco itself, rather it represents the nature of vice/governments stance towards vice. There is an interesting website, the nanny state index of which rates various countries throughout Europe on the basis of freedom of choice relating to tobacco products, unhealthy food, vaping and the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
As juvenile as this may seem, it does appear as if the freer the market pertaining to these particular vices; the higher the likelihood a given country won’t have excess “red tape” (i.e the government will leave you alone, allowing for grown men and women to make their own decisions).
Perhaps there is an argument for a need to keep people in line as many don’t make the right decisions. Plenty of people don’t have a well founded moral compass, plenty have no problem manipulating others for personal gain regardless of consequence to others etc.
I’d argue there’s a difference between mandating seatbelts “or else you’ll cop a huge fine” and ensuring legitimately dangerous people are kept in line but some don’t see it this way. The line between catering towards allowing adults to live independently absent of excessive government intervention and actually using government intervention to detain or suppress antisocial/deviant behaviour can blur at times.
Perhaps there’s an argument for excessive regulatory practice being for the greater good. I tend to worry about a domino effect occuring as has happened in Aus. We aren’t authoritarian by any means, though over the past two decades it’s been one ban/law passed aiming to fine law abiding citizens and alter behavioural patterns after another. Initially the laws made sense, but after a while things became ridiculous (like banning kites and soccer balls on various beaches, requiring permits for just about everything like… metal detecting)
There are upsides and downsides to any given approach at running a society, I don’t know what the optimal route of efficiency whilst simultaneously optimising quality of life for the individual would be. What’s optimal for me certainly wouldn’t be optimal for everyone, henceforth my beliefs pertaining to various policies aren’t based around what I’d prefer for myself as I know I’m a little bit of a basket case 
What is the happy medium for cigarettes? In Australia/various countries state governments are trying to out “progressive” one another by banning smoking in public entirely on the basis of “second hand smoke”. I’ve read the literature on second hand smoke rather extensively. For something so toxic when inhaled, second hand smoke entails a fraction of the toxicity within normal circumstances. The argument for second hand smoke lies within repeatedly getting hotboxed over and over again within an enclosed space. This does legitimately raise the risk of CVD/various cancers, but even then the risk is less than the act of actually smoking.
By the logic of banning smoking anywhere in public or on the porch or your own house given the lack of heavily documented evidence suggestive brief exposure to passive smoking is seriously detrimental to health we should ban people eating chocolate and drinking alcohol in front of others too.
Freedom is important to me, up until a point. If one’s actions start infringing upon the health/wellbeing of others I generally draw a line. Hence I do agree with banning smoking in enclosed places and setting up designated areas for those who wish to partake. Freedom be damned, it’s you’re right to smoke; but it isn’t your right to jeopardize the health/wellbeing of others (as specified enclosed spaces = risk)
I don’t believe tobacco cooperations should be allowed to advertise their products either (ditto for alcohol and cannabis). You say smoking is cool, that’s likely a byproduct of corporate influence. Tobacco was advertised to the masses as a rebellious, hip activity associated with independence (amusing as one becomes a slave to addiction). Had it not been for the advertising campaigns a massive culture/paradigm would have never enveloped around the act of smoking tobacco.
Immensely satisfying and pleasurable yes … But I see no reason as to WHY smoking should be considered cool
