I like your analysis, Bowz. The parallels seem pretty clear. As an unreformed smoker, I want to mention a couple more:

1) Plenty of "coercive" action has been taken against public consumption of tobacco, where there is a potential to harm others than one's self. It has been taken to such extremes as banning smoking at some outdoor venues, where a reasonable person might expect the dilution factor to be high.

Nevertheless, we smokers comply. I do not know of one among us who still denies that we are affecting our own health with the habit -- neither do I know any among us so arrogant as to not take non-smokers into account.

In contrast, it is impossible to oxidize carbon without contributing to the global increase, yet that class of "smokers" (whether individuals, corporations or governments) still denies the effect and retains the arrogance.

2) Smokers now are significant carriers of special tax burdens, which various state and Federal legislatures regularly mandate to fund public-health-related expenses. The logic, if you can call it that, escapes me... These lawmakers claim that raising the price (actually, the tax) will induce more smokers to quit, while at the same time depending on the revenue they generate at our expense not to decrease!

If nicotine is truly addictive (and I don't doubt that), then what do you call someone who exploits an addiction for gain? In the old days, they were called "pushers". Now they're called legislatures.

The current behavior of our carbon-burning economy may not technically be addictive, but people react as if their 'fix' was threatened. What do you call someone who exploits that habit for gain?