EU ban on snus is illiberal and illegal

I'm neither a smoker nor a snuser (user of snus), and only a moderate drinker. A few years ago when the Christian Democrat Dagfinn Høybråten, then Norwegian Minister for Health, introduced a law banning smoking in pubs and restaurants in Norway I applauded it, and I'm still a bit taken back when I come to countries where smoking indoors, in pubs and restaurants as well as in private homes, is not only completely legal but also common. Okay, so smoking in private homes is not outlawed in Norway, but it is becoming less and less commonplace. I think people should have the right to use substances that might hurt their health, such as tobacco and alcohol, as long as the use of these substances does not inflict harm on others. Which is why I support the ban on smoking in indoor public places. What I neither support nor understand, however, is the ban on substances that have practically no harmful effect on third parties and what's health risks are debatable. I am here talking of snus. Being very common in Sweden as well as Norway as an alternative to smoking, as the only external harm it inflicts is that the use of (old fashion) snus is not very aesthetically pleasing. Unlike cigarettes, snus does not give of smoke stuck on bystanders' clothes. Whether it causes cancer in the same way as regular tobacco is debatable. Nevertheless, albeit being completely legal in most Scandinavian countries, it has since 1989 been banned in the rest of the EU Inner Market. This inflicts not only with the basic freedom of movement of goods, as established in the Treaties, it also contradicts with the principle of mutual recognition, so famously established with the Cassis de Dijon case in 1979. Snus is a legal good according to Swedish health standards and should therefor be able to be legally sold in all countries members of the Internal Market. To forbid it is not only a paternalistic infringement of citizens right to make individual decision for their life, it is also a clear breach of basic Community law and ECJ jurisprudence, and the ban should thus be lifted.