First of all, you didn't originally pose a specific set of questions. You just outlined a nightmare scenario with rhetorical questions.

To your point here, "then why not" isn't an example of a logical deduction.

You're also intentionally ignoring that the discussion here is the banning of a subset of products that we know for certain cause many incredibly serious health problems and is one of the leading causes of premature death in many countries around the world. Smoking is bad for everyone, so making decisions on a "divers[sic] set of individuals" is completely reasonable -- unless you're arguing that smoking is good for some peoples' health?

I agree that if the government (for instance) started banning high-fat foods that there would be reason to say that this is overstepping the mark. But that's not what's happening.

> and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices

That's not what's happening.

> If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry?

Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's also an awful example of a logical deduction and actually undermines your other examples of "reasonable" questions.