This has become a very sensitive topic due to the amount of justification required to draw a line between freedom of choice and the law. Tobacco users who opposed the ban believed that "the state was effectively intervening to tell smokers that they are unable to decide for themselves what is good or bad for their health and that, therefore, it must play the role of nanny responsible". As a result, this began to dictate that, with this ban in place, it would limit the freedom of consumers. Tobacco companies claimed that they did not encourage smoking and that they were in fact informing consumers about brand choice by improving their "informed" selection of choice. It is argued that this in turn could encourage the 'uninformed' consumer to lean towards more harmful tobacco products being the root cause of smoking and that it was in fact the consumers' 'friends' who initiated/influenced the consumer into smoking. Finally, smoking-related illnesses "would reduce the state's liability for old-age pensions, on the assumption that those who get sick would die." consequently prematurely." Discuss the issue of conflict of interest as it pertains to the government