As another mentioned, its easy to make arguments for several of those having extended effects on others. And we legislate around that, we legislate those things to generally be allowed but socially engineered to bias away from with things like "sin taxes"

In the same way, it may be a lot more palatable to have such laws around covid, (higher tax on businesses which refuse to require masks for customers, but they're allowed to refuse if they choose etc, employees would likely still be require to mask) instead of mandated requirement to wear a mask

> it may be a lot more palatable

I somehow doubt it! I can hardly imagine a smaller burden to place on a person than to compel them to wear a mask, and yet look at the endless bickering it's caused. The idea that the people protesting mask mandates would find this tax more palatable seems completely implausible.

The whole idea about taxing away undesirable behavior is fine in general I guess, but if you think of the major effect as reducing the R0 of the virus, then why not just go further and make a full mask mandate? The smoking thing for example might have secondary effects, but not the way a /virus/ does. Is there no burden so small, no benefit to society so large, as to justify a mandate?

I would say several of those examples actually do increase increase risk to others, second hand smoke, being incapacitated by drugs or alcohol can often put others at risk for a number of reasons, etc. Furthermore, I would think that other behaviors, like having an unhealthy diet or not getting enough exercise put an increased burden on society which is borne by others, even if they are not put at risk.

A casual encounter with secondhand smoke has an exceedingly small likelihood of causing a spontaneous mutation resulting in lung cancer.

A casual encounter with a SARS-CoV-2 infected individual coughing on you without a mask can easily land someone in the ICU.

Being incapacitated by drugs and alcohol are permissible in certain situations (being in your own home), not in others (driving on the freeway).

In a similar fashion, not wearing a mask is permissible in some situations (being in your own home), not in others (standing six inches behind me in line at the grocery store).

"I would say several of those examples actually do increase increase risk to others, second hand smoke, being incapacitated by drugs or alcohol can often put others at risk for a number of reasons, etc."

which is why all those things are limited by law. I can't smoke in public spaces, I can't drive drunk, etc.

They are not 'rights' as you seem to argue, and they are limited/regulated just like a million other behaviors. Wearing a mask is no different. Personally, I'd say mask regulations are the equivalent of seatbelt laws - maybe uncomfortable, or inconvenient but basically harmless.