[ImPleadThe5th]

I feel like if the conclusion is "ban it for everyone too" I'm okay with it?

But the argument seems to get a little lost along the way.

Yes, adults are susceptible to the same vices as children. However (as the author writes) children have poorer impulse control. They are also less inclined to or unable to consider the repercussions of their actions.

You wouldn't try to get a toddler to stop smoking by telling them it'll put them at a high risk for cancer at old age.

Speaking of smoking, anti-smoking campaigns in the US in the 90s led to a vast reduction in teen use and adult use alike.

So there is notable lasting benefit in protecting children while they lack the foresight.

[oidar]

>Speaking of smoking, anti-smoking campaigns in the US in the 90s led to a vast reduction in teen use and adult use alike.

Late 90s... specifically after 1997 and early 2000s. But the anti-smoking campaigns before that were not effective. In fact, educating teens and adults on the dangers of smoking increased smoking. Smoking rates for teens peaked at 37% in 1997. it wasn't until the "Truth" campaigns where they focused on how the tobacco industry was basically a conspiracy, that smoking rates began to fall. And you can't pretend that tobacco taxes didn't play a part in reducing usage either.