I think making an addicting product and getting people hooked on it is another topic all together. Smoking is something you should be able to do, and not to do. If you are unable to move about without inhaling smoke that is injected into the scene by someone else it’s an active scenario. Getting sick is part of life, viruses and bacteria don’t have morals. You shouldn’t smoke around people who don’t want to smell it just like you shouldn’t set someone’s yard on fire. But literally controlling the movement and assembly of people because of microscopic organisms that have existed for millennia? That’s totally absurd and wholly different than intentionally burning chemical laden plant material around others.

> If you are unable to move about without inhaling smoke that is injected into the scene by someone else it’s an active scenario.

Walking around while infectious is also an active scenario.

> Getting sick is part of life, viruses and bacteria don’t have morals.

Part of death as well. Unless you're willing to get infected by anything and never seek healthcare, this stance is disingenuous.

Shutting down all of society with a very little proof ..versus a small targeted change like a speed limit or tobacco restriction that both have pretty much scientific consensus and decades of proof.

Those are not good comparisons.