Banning alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs have all been unsuccessful. Why would it work with cigarettes?

The aggressive taxation, cultural shaming, disallowing smoking in public places, health warnings etc. seem to be more effective than most blanket prohibitions, even against the addictive properties of nicotine.

Kids really shouldn't be smoking e-cigs either. E-cigs are only better than cigarettes because "cigarettes are so legendarily bad for you".

I can accept them as cessation devices, but all their value in this realm should be weighted against the new users they introduce, chief among them: Kids.

They shouldn’t be eating chips, breads, candy, soda, and sitting around watching garbage YouTube/Netflix media and superhero shows. Solution isn’t always to ban something. They shouldn’t be marketed to kids, just like sugary snacks in my opinion, but education is better than banning it for all adults. Just slap the same 21 year old restriction as alcohol and move on.

I don't see the argument. Bad effect from things that are relatively non-addictive (at least physically) suggest that things that are addictive needs to be even more controlled. If anything there is now a disparity between what science tells us about "junk food" and digital media, and what how we treat them. The idea that you can teach people faster than dangers can appear without boundaries doesn't seem to be supported these days.

Considering 70% of US population is overweight, and 30% is obese, I would say the foods I listed are addictive. Regardless of definitions of addictiveness, I still think education is a better force than prohibition for most vices.