> Less smoking is very good for the population health.

But what is population health good for if not enjoying life? Including (for some people) things like smoking a cigarette.

An interesting question. With many things we have to balance the fun of the moment with the long term consequences, even with plain food. But with smoking, especially cigarettes, this is a quite one-sided balance. Even without the risk of cancer, every single cigarette will do considerable, irrevocable harm to your lungs. And I know few people wo smoke lightly, Nikotin is extremely addictive. Finally, there is the impact on other people, if one smokes in their presence.

I guess I shortened my point too much to make it sound pretty. The real fun being taken away here is of course not smoking, but making your own choices. I myself kicked a very bad smoking habit for the exact reasons you mention.

Isn't a big part of the enjoyment satiating the addiction? With fewer people smoking (and non-smoke methods of getting a nicotine fix), I still see this as a great thing.

As a former nicotine addict, that's the only part. But what difference does it make? The pleasure is as real as any other.

Of course fewer people smoking is a great thing. It's just not great enough to justify taking away somebody's freedom to choose for themselves.

You assume the majority of smokers are either a) not new smokers and b) aren't actively trying to quit.

> Less smoking is very good for the population health.

No doubt but when smoking bans start to overreach to include things like outdoor places it's getting dangerously close to a form of discrimination. What's next? Banning overweight people from ordering certain items at restaurants?