Can we use this argument to extend to smoking? Should smoking be illegal by this criteria?
That's a prudential consideration. In other words, is trying to ban smoking worse than the smoking itself?
The same question applies here to sodomy laws. Is trying to regulate sodomy worse than not trying to regulate sodomy? That's the question that should be placed before the people of Texas, and should not be decided by a bunch of robed pervert-hugging elitists in the judiciary.
If the people of Texas want to repeal that law, I can say nothing against it. But there is no "right" to sodomy. Period.
Yes, inasmuch as smoking is a voluntary act.
Should smoking be illegal by this criteria?
No, because smoking, unlike homosexuality, is not intrinsically evil since, when used in small quantities, it doesn't represent a danger to one's health. Smoking, to the extent that it represents a clear danger to a specific individual's health, however, would be intrinsically evil.
Therefore, a tax on cigarettes which works to discourage chain-smoking is prudent. Unfortunately, such a tax would penalize the occasional user, but not significantly. Additionally, smoking is not essential to one's health. Such a tax then promotes the common good, more so than no tax would.