The reason you're getting downvoted is because you compared a tax on ad spend to "Christian moralist" taxation in the United States, otherwise known as sin taxes. But you changed your definition of a sin tax halfway through the thread.

These days, sin taxes like those on soda are often not motivated by religious concerns, at least in the US. They're taxes on goods or services that are harmful to individuals or society.

Some externalities of smoking for non-smokers include increases in health care coverage costs, reduced access to health resources, and loss of loved ones to smoking related health issues.

>Of course, there are arguments around the externalities of all of these things. I view most of those arguments as society contextual (people don't like others smoking, so it is an externality) as opposed to something like carbon which would have a negative externality regardless of this societal/cultural context.

I agree with you here and find the obsession many people here have with advertising weird. Still, alcohol pretty clearly has a negative externality "regardless of societal/cultural context." The consistently high percentage of vehicular deaths, assaults, rapes, damage to developing babies through FAS, and so on are all largely borne by people besides the drinker themselves.