[umanwizard]

Not sure where you live but in my country we already don't let minors smoke.

In most parts you can legally have sex before you can legally smoke.

[saalweachter]

In my country it is illegal for minors to smoke, and a majority of smokers start smoking as minors.

[umanwizard]

Well sure but I'm just pointing out that the analogy isn't great. There are already plenty of things minors can't legally do and we don't try to ban them for everyone.

[saalweachter]

It's not a question of illegal or not, it's a question of whether smokers are able consent to the risks of smoking, and therefore whether the companies are absolved of damages.

[umanwizard]

Your argument was that minors cannot meaningfully consent to the risks. But smoking is already illegal for minors.

How can a company be held liable for people who choose to use their product illegally? This doesn't make sense.

(It's different of course if they are directly encouraging children to smoke. In that case, they should have the book thrown at them.)