the state proscribes many asocial behaviors, and rightly so. and never do we seriously infer that the act of proscribing makes the proscribed behavior more prevalent (should we loosen the ban on human trafficing? on secruties fraud? murder?). surely there will be unintended (but not unforeseable) effects of banning cigarettes (some kids may think it's "cool",' some smugglers undoubtedly will be enriched), but that's a cost well worth saving many people from becoming addicted to a utility free habituation, which is compelled by the forces of capital, and which has devestating long term health/social consequences.

yes, the state often allows and provides methadone. it can do this while maintaining a ban on stronger, more destructive opioids. and so, the state can provide govt subsidized nicotine gum, while still maintaining a restriction on cigarettes.