My argument wasn’t that people quit smoking all together, but people stopped smoking in public spaces like planes and bars. Sure the occasional person lights up in the airplane bathroom despite the ban, but I think my broader point still stands.
Indeed, I think what made the bans possible was declines in smoking rates. And those declines were partially driven by increasing tax. Look at California for an example:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/DataPortal/charts.htm?url=CigTaxSur...
Note the big jumps in cigarette tax revenue in 1967 and 1988. That 1988 jump is from Prop 99: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_California_Proposition_99
Then look at the bottom graph here, showing how CA smoking rates declined quickly from 1988 to 1995 when the indoor ban was put into place:
https://tobaccofreeca.com/tobacco-industry/2016-california-t...
Of course, a lot was going on there, including social changes and the use of a lot of that revenue to discourage smoking. But it would seem pretty bizarre to me that the lack of smoking in public places had nothing to do with it becoming significantly more expensive over time. Especially given what a sizable portion of the retail cost of cigarettes was taxes: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0210.pdf
I'll also point out that commercially supplied addictive substances are never only "in their own house", in that the companies engineering and encouraging addiction are going to use profits to go and hook other people. So maybe look at this as a tax on the addictors and a barrier to generating new addicts.
Also, do you have data on this?
> People stopped smoking on planes and bars because of outright bans, not sin taxes.
My dad quit smoking before bans were common, and the (rising) cost was one of his motivations.