If they wanted to ban cigarettes, they should have banned cigarettes. The whole "let's pass a law that only affects people who can't vote" strategy applied here is tyranical.
A huge win for society
You already can’t legally do a lot of things that appear to only be about yourself because society as a whole said it’s not good for everyone. You can’t buy cocaine. You can’t commit suicide (it’s illegal almost everywhere) . You can’t ride a motorbike without a helmet, or drive a car without a seatbelt. You can’t even build a house without a smoke detector or remove the airbags from your own car.
To some degree, if you want to, go buy 100 acres in the middle of nowhere and go nuts. Or move to a country that doesn’t care about all those things.
If you want to be part of a modern clan, it’s not helpful to do things that indirectly hurts everyone, even if on the surface it only impacts you and your body.
If you want all the benefits of a modern society, it asks you to not be a net negative. This is 10x important in countries with universal healthcare, ie all but one.
Would you argue we should teach empower people to be more responsible and let them all own surface to air missiles?
Surely we should empower people to be healthy and make smart choices and let companies put arsenic in food to save money. Let people build homes with asbestos insulation because it’s cheap and works and let people connect their house to the gas main because it will encourage people to be resourceful ?
I’m all for encouraging people to make good choices, but the consequences are very obvious in certain circumstances.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
There was never really much of any concern of "wait, Puerto Rico has no representation in the law that was essentially drafted to target specifically them." All these people claiming to not support the smoking laws on this kind of basis were nowhere to be found. The law passed like a thief in the night.