MIM's idea about smoking is different than the capitalists'. The capitalist government wants to blame the individual for being "weak" and smoking. In contrast, MIM believes that if the main profiteers trying to addict people on deadly substances were shot and the rest of the would-be-tobacco-bourgeoisie had no place to use their ill-gotten wealth in the first place, the "weak" humyn flesh would not have any problems with smoking, because there wouldn't be any cigarettes or desire for them.
The bourgeois solution is to give themselves the "freedom" to sell cigarettes and talk about how far "commercial freedom of speech" should go. Now that the profiteers stand so exposed, we have state governments taxing cigarettes and using the proceeds to inform the public on the dangers. Ironically, some government programs won't exist if tobacco sales disappear. (The state-capitalist Soviet Union and Russia today always had the same predicament with opposing vodka--a tax base for its operation.)
In contrast, MIM sees smoking as an example of why there has to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Once the science becomes known, there is no more room for "freedom" of "opinion." Yes, it is taking away a "freedom" to stop tobacco executives from selling addictive substances and advertising. We say so what. Count those people dead on account of tobacco as people who would have benefitted from the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their freedom to live and do everything people do when they are alive counts more than the freedom of the bourgeoisie to profit.