Maybe it could be something like Portugal has, where you have to go through rehab if you are cought consuming certain drugs. But I guess that would cost the government a bit more money compared with just outright banning cigarettes.
Every major city in Europe has street corners where you can witness hopeless alcoholics in the throes of delirium tremens, each one representing a life broken by an addictive and harmful drug.
Watch any local news station in the United States and you'll routinely hear about a drunk driver getting into a crash that kills other innocent people who were just trying to reach their destination.
Somehow these costs to society are acceptable, while somebody choosing to smoke/chew/dip tobacco which may eventually cause them serious health conditions and death isn't.
For the record, I think keeping both alcohol and tobacco legal in the status quo way is fine, but I've long felt that the negative attention given to tobacco is disproportionate.
But beyond that, no politicians are advocating to plaster liquor bottles with graphic crime scene photos from drunk driving crashes or medical diagrams for fetal alcohol syndrome.
In a crowded street, somebody's choice to smoke tobacco isn't just causing them serious health conditions.
I don't advocate banning smoking (Brits seem to love banning things they disagree with). I'm fine with people smoking so long as they do it in an isolated area where it's just harming them. It would be better if they didn't (especially to ease the burden on the healthcare system and spending), but that's their prerogative. I'm just as much an NHS burden if I break my leg doing sport.
Most days I go out, my cloths reek of tabacco smoke, I can only imagine what I smoked second handed.