Not exactly Sophie's choice, I don't think.
I cannot understand your problem at all, except that a government agency has placed certain restrictions on a certain type of product packaging, which seems entirely non-controversial to me.
Are they happy the product they buy tells them they are going to have a gruesome medical condition?
And do you smoke? And do you advocate for the same imagery on products also associated to gruesome conditions but products you use, like computers, cars, food, buildings, government, etc?
Maybe it should only apply to companies which have engaged in fraudulent IFR.
How about having to put a picture of a pregnant woman being run over on the hood of every tesla, to remind about the murderous and gruesome reality of the manslaughters of the autoindustry?
The difference is not the product, its the popular sentiment that legitimizes a terrible overreach of state power.
The discussion of whether the use of state power to regulate products is appropriate is a potentially lengthy political discussion that isn't worth starting here.
No. Cigarettes have no positive purpose. They are 100% negative and a society is well served by discouraging their use.
Everything you listed has a positive purpose with the mere potential of being misused.
Uses it: don't punish
Doens't: punish
Similarly, you can usually plot people's feelings on cigarettes with:
Addicted: rationalizes their use
Not Addicted: doesn't rationalize their use
The fact that it is illegal for children is what is going to give them the most appeal.