I think the dual fact that so many are able to quit

This is relative - sure a lot do quit (I did, with absolutely no withdrawal symptoms), but a lot don't (such as my mother-in-law, who smoked right up until she died at the age of 49 from cancer that was probably caused by her smoking). I'm not sure that I buy the argument that nicotine is more addictive than heroin, but I do think there's pretty solid proof that it is, indeed, addictive to a majority of users.

...and the fact that "quitting now greatly reduces your chances" of coming down with a serious smoking related illness make for an extremely good argument against banning tobacco.

This is a good point.

You don't really see ten year olds smoking..

ehhh....maybe not ten, but my sister started smoking when she was twelve or thirteen, I think. According to the ACS, a full one-third of all smokers started by the age of 14. How can you possibly have informed consent at that age? You're worried about pimples and the growing boobies on the girl two rows across from you, not about whether you're going to die of lung disease twenty years before your time (but still fifty years from now, and right now you've got to try to figure out how to hide that spontaneous erection you got daydreaming about your MILF teacher).

I don't support a ban on smoking - I think adults should be free to do what they want to with their bodies, but I do think that this is one case where maybe we do need to do more to protect the children (within reason). My cutoff line is based on the civil rights of the common citizen - so while I don't support heavy handed consumer-based mechanisms to stop children from buying (how effective are ID checks and so on, really? All my friends smoked in high school in the 1990s, when those campaigns were first started and heavily enforced, and yet they never had any trouble getting an adult to buy them cigarettes), I do support heavily regulating the cigarette companies themselves (personally, I'd like to see a ban on all advertising, period), and I also support policies (such as heavy taxation) that encourage the use of tobacco as a luxury item instead of a commodity. This preserves the right of adults to use tobacco, while taking away some of the youth mystique (after all, how many kids do you see smoking cigars or pipes? The "cool" appeal tends not to be there for luxury items - youth likes to have a lot of something, for cheap, not an expensive little to savor). Using sales taxation to drive smoking out of the youth market's price range is also much more civil liberties friendly - nobody needs to be checking your ID for every damn purchase, the tax itself is untraceable, etc, etc.

I think the dual fact that so many are able to quit and the fact that "quitting now greatly reduces your chances" of coming down with a serious smoking related illness make for an extremely good argument against banning tobacco.

The counterargument to that is, "too many people are making too much money to ban tobacco." And no, I don't (just) mean tobacco companies. Between the taxes assessed at almost every level of government on cigarette sales and the incomes of vote-casting farmers, I'd say we'll see a tobacco ban sometime shortly after crystal meth gets sold OTC.

While you argue that teenagers who choose to take up smoking are capable of making an informed decision, the mere fact that they would do something as ridiculous as taking up smoking suggests that their judgment is defective.  It is never a good idea to smoke cigarettes.  While it is true that nicotine is a stimulant which therefore has somewhat of an energizing effect, there are much safer stimulants that we can use if we require stimulation (drink a can of Red Bull).  The health effects of smoking are so dire, that it is an indefensible activity.  Furthermore, second-hand smoke is a problem almost unique to cigarette smoking (although it could become a problem with marijuana as well, if that were to be smoked in public places as tobacco has been).  Smokers in most cases poison themselves and everyone around them, thus transgressing beyond the noble principle that we should be allowed to do what we like to our own bodies (although in theory a smoker could be careful about exposing other people to cigarette smoke; this happens very seldom in practice).  

Still, outright prohibition is very difficult.  Despite the frantic efforts of the War on Drugs, many people continue to use all the illegal drugs.  Presumably cigarettes would still be smoked as well, legally or illegally.  Still, I would get rid of tobacco if I could.

UPS is a joke.  I refuse to ship anything via UPS due to declining quality of service in recent years.

Consequently, there are many places I no longer do business with because UPS is only option for shipping to Hawaii.

I figure if they don't want my business enough to ship US Mail, I don't need their products.  So far it's working out just fine.

"It was an ancient rule of Hawaiians that no one should hurt another bodily, or through theft of goods or through injury to feelings.These were the only sins."

I find it hard to believe that that is acceptable procedure to forge someone's signature.

It's not. But.....
Question: did you track the package and see whether a signature was obtained? Some barcodes (especially from wine shippers) are automatically triggered for signature only release, but not all shippers pay for that. It's possible that he left it as a "Driver Release - Front Porch" or one of the other options on his DIAD if the "signature required" alert didn't show.
It's also entirely possible that he was in a hurry and decided the rewards were worth more than the risks and signed for your stuff figuring you'd rather receive your stuff today rather than wait another day and run the risk of your wine being busted up. Lemme explain: if you're not home then the pkg gets driven around on the truck all day being bumped and jostled while the driver goes about the rest of his day. This may include your pkg being moved to various places in the truck several times as the driver shifts other pkgs around while making deliveries and pick-ups. Nothing is ever static in a UPS truck. Every time your pkg gets moved is another opportunity for damage to occur.
Once the driver returns to his building at the end of the day, your pkg will be unloaded onto a conveyor system along with all of the other pkgs that were picked-up during the day to be sorted to various trailers/holding environments. Again, all of this movement provides ample opportunity for damage as your pkg will be commingling with other larger, heavier items during its transit.
The drivers are usually pretty good at assessing the odds on whether to break a rule to leave a pkg someplace that they're technically not supposed to -vs- the risk of not delivering your pkg  and having it get damaged or misrouted. UPS management in aware that this happens and largely condones it as long as the driver follows some unwritten rules (which I'm not going to post), and customers don't complain.
I process damaged pkgs in the building that I work in, so I'm familiar with all of the stages explained above. Oh, and when I was working as a delivery driver I left pkgs here and there despite some of the rules that dictated otherwise :-)

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

What is up with that?

Basically, they have a quota of deliveries to make in a day and they don't really feel like waiting around for people to answer the door. This is especially true for daytime deliveries in single family home neighborhoods where they feel the chance of theft is low. When I lived in a semi-sketchy apartment building, my UPS driver (who was based out of exactly the same regional warehouse as the current guy, and presumably had all the same bosses/procedures/etc) would never leave anything out in the hallway - we always had to either sign for it or go pick it up if we couldn't be there when he was delivering. On the other hand, he was usually pretty good about doing his deliveries pretty late in the afternoon after most people would be home from work. My current guy usually delivers in mid-afternoon, when he must know most people are still at work, but since it's a "nice" area I guess he feels it's okay. Generally it's fine, but sometimes they forget to take into account the weather. We almost had our wedding album ruined because it was delivered on a rainy day...fortunately our photographer had had that happen before, and was smart enough to wrap everything inside the box in plastic!

On a serious note, does this mean I can now send, order and receive alcohol in the mail

No. The 21st Amendment explicitly gives states the right to regulate the sale and transport of alcohol as they see fit. From Wikipedia:

The second section bans the importation of alcohol in violation of state or territorial law. This has been interpreted to give states essentially absolute control over alcoholic beverages, and many U.S. states still remained "dry" (with state prohibition of alcohol) long after its ratification. (Mississippi was the last, remaining dry until 1966[citation needed]; Kansas continued to prohibit public bars until 1987)[citation needed]. Many states now delegate the authority over alcohol granted to them by this Amendment to their municipalities and/or counties, which has led to many lawsuits over First Amendment rights when local governments have tried to revoke liquor licenses.

It's one of the few areas of commerce where the federal government has given states complete control.