The government can levy high taxes without on items without it being considered "taking" under eminent domain.
The government does have the power to make things illegal, and often doing so has financial consequences, and I've never heard of a court upholding it as taking and demand compensation.
By that argument the government couldn't outlaw abortion without compensating abortionists for lost revenue.
You could even argue that assassins should be compensated for not being permitted to murder people.
If regulating becomes taking that must be compensated for, the government couldn't regulate much of anything. You'd basically have anarchy.
The subject at hand isn't taxes, it's smoking bans on private property.
The government does have the power to make things illegal
The government hasn't made smoking illegal, just smoking in certain places among which are privately owned establishments. The owners of these establishments have had onerous financial burdens placed on them, have lost revenue and therefore have had the value of their businesses (property) devalued. All this has been done in deference to junk science and in the service of Big Anti-Tobacco.
You could even argue that assassins should be compensated for not being permitted to murder people.
Reductio ad absurdum navel-gazing doesn't interest me. Big Anti-Tobacco has been trying to equate second-hand smoke with murder for some time now. All this does is point out its shrieking intellectual dishonesty.
If regulating becomes taking that must be compensated for, the government couldn't regulate much of anything. You'd basically have anarchy.
Oh please. So resistance to government encroachments on property rights is now the equivalent of anarchy? You may have learned to love the rope, but I haven't.
The only thing missing here is the late-night pizza delivery and Che posters on the wall.
Parting is such sweet sorrow.....