> We are specifically talking about smoking practices that do not harm others being banned in Australia.
Smoking in a private residence is not banned in Australia.
> Yet people are continuously bringing up passive smoking, something that does harm so totally off topic, but this is their argument.
Most of Australia's bans are to make secondhand smoking something that can be entirely avoided by non-smokers. Taxation is a separate issue, and there are valid arguments against taxation of products like tobacco and alcohol.
The only thing mentioned in the article which is not related to this goal is discussions about age discrimination for tobacco sales. Personally I think such a law would not be a good idea, simply because it would increase the demand for black market tobacco.
The right way of combating the public health epidemic of smoking is through social stigmatisation. And luckily it's worked (I'm in the younger generation, and smoking carries far more of a stigma than it did in previous generations).
And believe it or not, but plain packaging does actually work. At least, it did for me (the images on packets scared the crap out of me as a child).
> bully a minority with immunity, also an Australian trait.
As someone who came from a country where non-smokers are the minority, I definitely prefer living in a country where you can actually go to the CBD and also being able to breathe. Maybe the "bullying" is earned, when a person is negatively affecting public spaces.
Not to mention that you keep talking about fundamental human rights but you've yet to explain what right is being infringed. The right to consume any substance is actually not a human right -- though maybe you would like it to be? In which case, lets fix all of the human rights violations in impoverished nations where starvation is common before we start discussing tobacco.