Yes while it is obviously better for general health but just like with other drugs, it is people's choice to smoke, drink, inject and whatever.But, i believe, this is not a question of health, but about liberty of choice, and if they would ban smoking, they would literally limit people's actions which is not cool
Depending on this country's civil rights policies, this decision does seem quite harsh. To completely ban smoking nation wide seems unjust. Smoking is a personal decision. Allocating certain locations for smokers is better than just banning them altogether. I'm not sure if this is even feasible. It will be reminiscent of prohibition, with people sneaking around to smoke.
Today, people know how dangerous smoking is. People know that today many people die of smoking each year. Getting rid of smoking is an easy way that people can take control of their lives and lower health care costs. When you have centralized medicine, you have to make sure people behave in healthy ways.
No, it is not too harsh to eradicate smoking because it is well known that smoking causes health issues such as lung cancer for some of the smokers and also to the people around them. For Finland to become the first country to eradicate smoking it is a huge goal, I hope they succeed.
No, eradicating smokers is not too harsh. This will improve the health of the country. It is a good idea for a country to get involved in improving the health of its citizens. After a while people will not miss it and will be glad it is gone. This is good.