playing with smoking arguments

I have stopped smoking some time ago, what a relief! While still struggling between eating and making everybody's life a living hell, I started reading more on tobacco issues and I came across some older devious anti-smoking campaigns designed by big tobacco companies. There are sooooo many things to say here, but I'll just focus on some linguistic features of their discourse, leaving others to deal with other aspects.

People would sometimes assume that it's commonsense for big fish in tobacco industry not to be very honest about their intentions, 'cos that's what happens when the big bad wolf watches the sheep, right? Things are not that simple, and their anti-smoking intentions can really LOOK very sincere; this is how they ended up "fighting against juvenile smoking", which is quite surprising, when we know that's the prey they're mostly after.

To cut the story short, in 1991 Philip Morris issued a short article which seems straightforward: "Philip Morris Doesn't Want Kids To Smoke". After reading it, it seems that something is amiss. I mean, at the surface, the arguments seem reasonable efforts to prevent kids from smoking, but are they really? Let's see how their argument is constructed:

Claim1> We don't want children to smoke.
Reason> Parents should encourage children to make the right choices, not just to follow along.

Claim2> We don't want children to smoke.
Reason> Smoking is not for young children.

The arguments deal not with reasons why it's good or bad to smoke, but they appeal to the young whether to consider smoking or not. If it's ok for adults, why isn't for me? And to make sense of claim1, we have to insert another premise, which people think of intuitively: if it's my own choice, then it makes it right, right? What they really say is this: young people are not adults and they tend to smoke because they follow others. Parents should help children make their own choices and not follow others. Period. But why is smoking bad for children???? That's the beauty of this paradox: while the arguments appear to be balanced and objective, they undermine the credibility of their own advice.

PS> I'm not a hypocrite, I am aware that a cigarette is there in my mouth in my profile pic, but I'm not playing role-modelling here. It's the only picture I like with me, and not because of that smoke...