There are numerous articles online, quoting surveys & research about the number of smokers who have stopped smoking, if sharing of cigarettes still occurs, the impact of the ban on smokers, the money lost in cigarette tax, the illegal trade, the disrespect that most of the country feels about the handling of the situation, whether hospitals are filled with smokers and whether smoking causes a more serious version of the virus.The articles always leave one feeling quite sure that the court would rule against the ban. All logic points to it.But in court, we keep losing. HOW??!Most the points above alone are good enough to lift the ban, so how is it possible that the court arrives at a different resolution? Where is the logical reasoning for each one of the above-mentioned points not carrying enough weight to warrant lifting the ban?What is the court’s response to government's evidence being low quality, incorrect and misleading? I haven’t read anything about the court being told to disregard that evidence.How can they POSSIBLY justify that it's worth losing the millions in cigarette tax? WE have to make that money up while that awful woman quietly says, 'it’s not that much money in the big picture'. Why does 1 woman have so much power? Why isn’t more being said about the left-over Jacob Zuma faction and the influence that a Zuma is still having. Why is she doing this to us, to our economy? Personal gain? How much would be enough to deliberately cause this much damage to our fragile economy, our trust and belief in government, the anger and hatred that is simmering country wide, disrespect to millions and millions of people including many highly regarded specialists who have voiced disapproval of the ban and requested it be lifted.That’s an awful lot of bad karma.