That's not quite full thought through and so you've been unfair. It's certainly not hypocritical if I am happy to accept the same ban (or tax or whatever) on the activity, the same as everyone else.
It's hypocritical if you don't call for a ban on every activity that is known to be "bad" for society, that you only want to ban things you personally find "bad."
For example I'm not a smoker now, but I was for many years, and tried many times to give up. I accepted the escalating punitive tax (in the UK) as a good incentive to cut down or give up.
That is not a fair example as that is something you wanted to give up anyway. Your philosophy would ban every recreational drug (including alcohol), non-educational TV, movies, video games and entertainment. It would ban pornography, cosmetic surgery, probably cosmetics themselves, on and on down the line. That would make you consistent and not a hypocrite.
It's a fact that smoking's not good for anyone. It's an addiction that people almost universally get into when they are young and impressionable.
That is absolutely not a fact. Smoking has long term negative health consequences, but it is for the individual to decide if the good they get out of smoking - the pleasure, stress relief, camaraderie, et al. outweigh those long term risks. Your philosophy does not account for the benefits from "bad" habits or activities. I smoke about twice a year and the value I get from those experiences is enormous vs. the added health risk I'm subjecting myself to. Your philosophy would prevent me from making that individual choice, simply because YOU have an addictive personality (at least to cigarettes) and I don't.
And so society helping to discourage it is good for everyone.
It's good for society, in general, certainly not for everyone. Discouragement is fine, within limits, as shutdown (and I) have discussed, but you are talking about absolutes. Like no smoking in "public" spaces, for example.
The other poster mentions cannabis ...
There is almost no doubt that cannabis has negative health effects and many short term costs, therefore by your philosophy it should be banned. If you open the door to weighing the good an individual gets vs. the long term risk (and external costs) in this case you have to allow it in all cases (see "hypocrite" above).
Your point about eternal costs is a good one, and also covers regulation on the environment. Those costs are not only monetary ones.
Absolutely. Those who enjoy the benefits of a "bad" habit should pay for ALL external costs.