A Times editorial about the decision by CVS to stop selling tobacco products speaks of the need to "drive home the message that the availability of this lethal consumer product should be curtailed as much as possible and that tobacco use is socially unacceptable."
Contrast that with the Times' much more permissive attitude toward smoking marijuana, which a January 30 Times editorial recommended as a pain treatment for football players, and which a January 7 Times editorial recommended making widely available in New York even to non-football-playing customers.
The distinction seems to be that marijuana has magical elixir-like qualities on par with green tea, oatmeal, almond milk, and other health foods, while tobacco is bad for you. The problem, however, is that science, which the Times regularly faults Republicans for ignoring on issues such as climate change, doesn't exactly bear this out.
A 40-year study of Swedish men that was published in 2013, for example, found that "heavy" cannabis use, or more than 50 times over a lifetime, "was significantly associated with more than a twofold risk of developing lung cancer over the 40-year follow-up period, even after statistical adjustment for baseline tobacco use, alcohol use, respiratory conditions, and socioeconomic status." The study observed that "Cannabis (marijuana) smoke and tobacco smoke contain many of the same potent carcinogens."
In other words, the Times editorial position isn't based on what is or isn't "lethal," but on what is or is not "socially acceptable," which the Times itself is shaping with its coverage in articles such as this one from last year on "The etiquette of pot smoking in social settings....given pot's increased presence in the mainstream."