To show the hypocracy of smoking, and to a lesser extent, other drug, prohibitions one only has to look at attitudes to non-drug risk-taking. Here in Australia, due to the Ozone/CFC crisis of the 90s, we have an ultra-thin Ozone layer and the hole in the layer just reaches our southern cities. The cancer that kills most people here is skin cancer - not lung cancer. Yet nobody suggests that we should ban going to the beach, or mandate long-sleeved clothing (in the Australian sun - again, because of the lower Ozone content in the atmosphere - sunscreen isn't enough to prevent skin cancer from prolonged sun exposure). They accept that we have education on skin cancer built into our communities and schools from an early age, and that people have to decide for themselves how much they'll remain indoors and how much they'll risk sun exposure. The notion that we should avoid all unnecessary sun exposure to maxisimise our lives is viewed as ridiculous - even with our biggest-killing cancer being skin cancer.
The same can be said for views on rock climbing, cliff diving, para-gliding and caving. All of these involve a very substantial tradeoff of security for satisfaction, and people accept that whilst they might not wish to take such risks, others should be able to so long as they understand what's involved.
That's the key. In a society with adequate education on smoking, and restrictions on cigarette advertising, people should be free to decide for themselves where to make that tradeoff between satisfaction and security.
Of course, there could well be good non-paternalistic reasons for limiting smoking. If second-hand smoke is sufficiently dangerous, then it could plausibly be banned as a hazard to others - from what we know so far, that is probably true in enclosed spaces for prolonged exposure, so smoking in eating areas, public buildings, workplaces etc should be prohibited.
Where a country has a first world (sorry US) health system, where the state covers the cost of treatment, it is also perfectly reasonable to tax cigarettes at a rate sufficient to recoup the increased costs of lost productivity (the health costs themselves are the same, as the person is going to need extended support eventually - we still die, regardless of whether we smoke or not). That, again, is routine in countries like Australia and the UK.
