Ban tobacco effects backwards?

Implementing a tobacco ban doesn’t reduce usage at all until about 50%, then starts to curve. Meanwhile, the impact on organized crime is strong to start, but increases at a shallow and flat rate. Are these backwards? They seem to be to me.

Things like not being able to smoke at a restaurant or needing to go outside to smoke at work do cause people to skip smokes. However, if they can’t smoke at a restaurant, there’s no way they can pay organized crime to be allowed to smoke there. Organized crime only comes in if somebody takes an overzealous approach to tobacco as we have already seen with the “War on Drugs”. If I enact prohibition of tobacco, then organized crime should run wild.

Also, the names on the ban tobacco policy could be better. “Low, medium etc.” don’t tell me much. Things like “banned in government offices” into “banned indoors” to “designated smoking areas”. I pulled that last one from my 15 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. Rather than the “no smoking” signs, they have smoking banned as the default, with designated smoking areas. They tend to be gazebos in areas that are already sheltered from the wind.