Well, firstly, because I did think for a moment you were going to start defending tobacco companies—that would have been wild. Thanks for not doing that, I guess.

But secondly, because there is nothing actually wrong with this word choice. Like, this is kind of a literacy issue: smuggling is more than just moving physical goods, it is to sneak them across lines and borders maintained by authorities. The advertisement here is the good being smuggled; it's a perfectly apt metaphor. The implication is either that regulators don't know this is happening, or are by some technicality unable to do anything about it.

Broadly, this is related to arguments I've had with people about whether 'genocide' is an appropriate term for what the US is or wanted to start doing. And, what do you know, we now have our first internment camp. I'll pause for applause; you gotta love an achievement.

Hell, I remember arguments about whether Isreal was technically committing a genocide. They are doing that. People were just calling it ahead of time.

I desperately want to see people stop particulating over the details of at best mildly incorrect word choice. This is a kind of anti-intellectual behavior. It's refusing to see a metaphor, or even a perfect application, for what it is. You actually work against positive forces by constantly dragging the discussion down.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I just thought thoroughly explaining would be better than going back and forth 17 more times.