That's because you don't see government regulation as the use of force. But it is. If you don't comply, you will be fined. If you don't pay the fine, you will be imprisoned. If you refuse to go to prison, you will be killed. Everything the government mandates is enforced through the threat of violence.

Let's take smoking:

In my view of the world, it's my business whether I want to allow smoking on my property. You might say, sure, smoke in your house if you want. But I'll say that my property includes a business that I operate. If I own a bar or restaurant, and I want to allow smoking in it, then that's my right as the property owner. If you don't like smoking, don't come to my restaurant. Nobody is causing you harm, because you don't need to come.

The prohibition is against inflicting harm on others. Not in harming one's self. If I want to chain smoke and give myself lung cancer, that's my business. If I want to create an emporium for people who want to do the same, then that's my business and theirs. Stay out if you don't like it.

But that's not good enough for the do-gooders. They want to pass a law that says that I can't allow smoking in my own business. If you support that kind of thinking, you are misguided.

Edit: ok, more on the do-gooders. What moral right do you claim to impose draconian taxes on those who want to enjoy tobacco? The justification is that they don't know what's best for them, so we, with our superior moral judgement, will make it prohibitively expensive to let people do what they want. Then we can claim a great moral victory over the vice. But vices are not crimes. Stop this sanctimoniousness and let people live their lives as they see fit. If you don't like it that they get sick, then don't pay their health care. But don't force socialized health care down our throats and then use it as an excuse to meddle in our pleasures because you consider them too dangerous.