I agree with you on several notes, mainly that so long as something isn't harmful, there isn't anything genuinely "wrong" with it. Of course there are a million arguments against that, and only half a million for it. The majority wins most of the time, as we know well. (MOST of the time -- isn't that what the electoral vote is for? )

More importantly, it's about lifestyle and how much, how negatively, somebody is being affected by something, in which case it is beneficial to do something about it. When its effects are positive, doing nothing, or promoting it, is perhaps the better choice. The situation and circumstances determine the outcome... the question is about doing it justice.