Pointing at something and saying "Bad!" is not fixing the problem. You can call out the systemic issues all you want. But if your solutions involve those exact same systems to implement change, then lo and behold... you arent actually fixing anything. You are getting in the way of progress and are part of the problem.

Far better to trust markets, thats where change happens. If something old is bad or its is understood that it is bad for you, people stop. Nto everyone, but they lose market share. Where is Alta Vista, the best internet search engine in the mid 90s? How large is the market for buggy whips? Are you saving things to floppy disk still?. Do you still put film in your camera? Your typewriter get much use recently, do you feel you need a new one?

"those things arent bad for you!"

Bisphenol, microbeads, even lead paint, CRT screens. The market for all of these things had radically dropped long before any bans were put in place. The government only had to inform people why it was bad, and they even did a poor job of that. Even rockefeller's Standard Oil lost 20% of the market before the government came in and made him split it up into many companies, which was a huge boon to him, since they also made him own shares in all those companies.

"ok, but some things never get widely used unless the government forces them"

Also not true. Anti-lock brakes were deployed in 94% of cars before 2013! Organic foods were not required, and got worse and less descriptive when the government regulated it. UV protection in sunglasses were the norm before the government made ti mandatory. There was literally no reason at all to do that that last one.

The processes in place protect bad actors, and using government to fix it is just saying "Yo Government, those guys are doing the bad thing" to which the unspoken answer is always "Yeah, we know. Look! a squirrel!"

NOTE: I LOVE SMOKING BANS. It doesnt mean I think they are particularly useful in getting people to stop, fight pollution, or solve the problem. For the most part, the move the problem to the doorway. I don't even think they are morally right. Nothing where one group of people directly forces another group of people to do something can claim the high ground.

But even those were implemented at a time when non-smoking venues were changing on their own. In a few years, it likely would have been solved on its own. Even freaking france had a cultural shift on this (they need more time. :))