> costs for increased health care

Smokers are net over-contributors in most countries, cigarette taxes vastly exceed health care costs, in no small part to shorter lifespans of smokers and often quick deaths.

> health impacts on non-smokers

Maybe if you work in a smoking bar/restaurant (which is your choice) or live with someone who smokes inside.

> the simple impact it has on the happiness of those subjected to your freedom

I'll worry about that when society starts extending the same courtesy.

So let's get rid of cars and make risky sports illegal.

Where does that argument end, though?

Can we ban motorcycles because they regularly disturb my otherwise quiet street and frequently kill their riders, many of whom ride their bikes at irresponsible speeds that put other road users in danger?

Or how about alcohol, which kills many more people each year than all illegal drugs combined, which causes many people to drive drunk which puts innocent people in danger, or which causes some people to get violent and start fights in the street? I doubt there's a single pub in Australia that doesn't host at least one drunk fight a week, and dozens of young people have been killed in punch-ups with other young people who had one too many and think they're invincible.

Image what the 'war on drugs' would look like as a 'war on tobacco' - drug prohibition causes very high levels of social problems, and doesn't eliminate consumption (or even dramatically decrease it, possibly, though the evidence is highly tendentious either way). It also isn't clear that tobacco smoked in small amounts (enjoy a cigar or two at the weekend) is a major health hazard.

I don't and never have smoked, but I think the freedom argument is pretty strong. Not allowing tobacco companies to lie about their product, is a good move. Banning them, not so much.