You're confusing advertising with rights.
I have a right (a liberty in Hoefield's scheme of rights) to curse within my own home. I also have a right to live off of brownies if I so decide. I don't have that right because brownies or cursing is so "valuable" per se, but because it's my right, legally, to do what I wish within my home so long as it doesn't affect others. To carry my example, I can't curse so loudly as to disrupt my neighbors, even though I can otherwise curse - again, the issue isn't the cursing here, it's that I am disrupting my neighbors.
We can argue that smoking seems to cause a lot of health issues for non-smokers who are nearby. The majority of the research we have at this point seems to indicate a causative pattern pretty strongly. Therefore, at least in some states, you can't smoke in a restaurant or by a door way. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason (nor does the Federal Government have the ability to) limit smoking within the privacy of your own home. I would argue that most businesses don't either unless they can prove that your smoking/non-smoking is required for your job (say, if you work at a hospital).
TLDR: "If [eating brownies] is so great and such a valuable right that others shouldn't be able to stop you doing it whenever and wherever you please, why do [brownie producing companies] spend hundred of millions of dollars every year just to keep convincing people they need to keep doing it?