I think there is a stronger and more general argument to be made that the government should not be in the business of telling people how or if they can spend their money on things they want to spend it on.

Spending significant fractions of one’s income servicing one’s chosen addictions (alcohol and tobacco and reckless spending of money principally among them) is a long and great tradition enjoyed by an huge portion of society and it seems utterly contrary to the idea of basic liberty to get involved in impeding that. Most addicts love their addictions; most of the ones that don’t eventually stop.

The problem with that logic is that when someone bottoms out on their addiction they become a burden society has to pay for.

It's one thing to enjoy a vice, it's another to intentionally manipulate someone else into falling deeper and deeper into that vice to your benefit. Prohibiting that kind of behaviour isn't the same as prohibiting the vice itself.

The sociopaths that gleefully exploit human psychology for their own financial gain should be stamped out.

> Most addicts love their addictions; most of the ones that don’t eventually stop.

Source? This doesn't match up with any addict I've interacted with or seen in media. The majority seem to fall between being unaware, in denial, or deeply unhappy about it but are unable to break their dependency.

> Most addicts love their addictions; most of the ones that don’t eventually stop.

This does not match my understanding or experience at all. Please share a source if you have one.