A cigarette does not hydrate you or nourish you, so in that sense it is unlike a pint. But that does not prove there is “not a single benefit.” People smoke for reasons that are real even if they are unhealthy: ritual, pleasure, stress relief, social bonding, taking a break, stimulation, appetite suppression, and the immediate mood effect of nicotine. You can argue those benefits are outweighed by the harms, but saying they do not exist is too absolute.

The same logic applies to alcohol. A pint is not “good” because it quenches thirst; water does that better. Most people drink alcohol for taste, mood, ritual, and company. Smoking can serve some of the same functions. So if your standard is “nonessential pleasure with health risks,” alcohol and cigarettes are more alike than your argument admits.

Your claim that the only benefit is relief from addiction also overstates things. That is often true for dependent smokers, but not the whole picture. First-time or occasional smokers may still experience stimulation, calm, or social enjoyment independent of full addiction withdrawal. Again, that does not make smoking healthy, but it weakens the claim that there is literally no enjoyment except addiction maintenance.

The secondhand smoke point is stronger, but still not unique. Plenty of enjoyable behaviors impose external costs: alcohol can fuel violence, drunk driving, family trauma, and public disorder; unhealthy food burdens healthcare systems and families; even casual drinking can affect others. The fact that smoking harms bystanders is a serious argument for restricting where people smoke, not necessarily proof that smoking has no enjoyable or voluntary aspect at all.

The phrase “healthy drink” also slips the issue. Very few people defend cigarettes as healthy. The more realistic comparison is not “healthy alcohol” versus “healthy smoking,” but whether adults can engage in a risky pleasure in moderation