Citation:

"Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

Only works for countries that don't have a large "black" economy and HMRC spends a lot of effort tracking down smuggled tobacco - normally sold in the back bar of the less salubrious pubs.

Her Majesty's Revenue Collector ?

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Roughly speaking, revenue being taxes on what you earn, and customs being taxes on what you buy.

There used to be separate departments for each, but they were merged years ago. This was a slightly odd move, as the revenue were people who were good at doing very detailed analysis of paper trails, whereas customs were people who were good at kicking down smugglers' doors.

Isn't that a logical move? Allow a single department to both gather and act on the information, rather than disparate departments that have to try to work together?

"some estimate that for most intents and purposes, tobacco tax increases are also regressive even at the population level" [...] "While there are numerous studies that support the effectiveness of increasing prices, most declare that equity implications need to be paramount."

An important point to be sure. I think we should just execute smokers. Surely a study will show that reduces smoking. /s ...or maybe we can just realize the ends don't justify the means.

Murder is a disproportionate response. Making it legal to throw or smear poop on someone's face would be approximately equal in my mind to public smoking. You want to smoke? Fine, control the entire byproduct so it doesn't enter the personal space of others. Oh you can't control it? Sounds like you're out of control. Well I can get all out of control too, here's a poopstache. Yes this would be assault with a biohazard, and so is 2nd hand smoke.

Strong rhetoric but do you have the same view about driving a vehicle that has noxious emissions (and we're only recently discovering quite how noxious) that inevitably enter the personal space of others? Can we assume you don't have one?

Meh, that's a stawman argument.

We grudgingly accept the emissions from cars because of their other usefulness.

If we could make cars with no emissions and no other negatives, gas-powered vehicles would surely be outlawed very soon.

Smoking has no useful purpose and frankly it's ridiculous that some people feel they are entitled to put other people's health at risk because of their own addiction.

Of course you can control it. In many locations it is effectively controlled where only those wanting to have poop thrown in their face will and the rest can go on without it since the vast majority of zones are poop-throwing-free (in the places I am referencing).

In the town I live in, smoking is only allowed in adult-only establishments. And those allowing smoking are the minority because many business owners realized their customers don't want it at all. Best of all worlds and the state didn't have to completely outlaw its public indoor use, just restrict it.

"Best of all worlds" in your opinion is a world where people have to deal with unnecessary and unwanted toxic gases in only a minority of establishments?

I’d say Hollywood and ads played a big role in Cigrattes being perceived as “cool”.

Many countries ban advertisements of cigarettes and recently there is a culture shift in Movies.

I definitely think it’s a generational change.