So, x adopts habit w at location y because of agents z?

If we take it for granted that w can be blamed on anyone other than x, y is simply where the adoption of w takes place. To say "he is caused by [z] to take up [w]" seems to answer the question.

Are you sure cause and effect exist outside of the mind?

Apart from that it is impossible to judge someone's actions because we do not have a standing which allows us a vision on such things.

Human legal systems show that it has nothing to do with "rights" or "justification"; but with punishment and creating "guilt".

No you could only lay blame onto school (y) or (z) ,for there reason in intent, for the school's intent was to teach you same as the teachers, the pupils would have to be in there own section because there intent's are greatly difrent from the intent of the teacher's, and also could temp or want you to smoke, therefore there intent could be to get you to start smoking. so the answer is still no, yet person (x) can blame him/her can be held accountable for it, for person (x) now has intent to smoke. also there is a related passge at this link about cause and effect aka action and reaction, which would show you that the only thing's we can blame is the people that shown intent to do the action, are self's and the first action that started all other actions. aka the first cause and first effect

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/young-philosophers-forum/1365-philosophy-self-2.html

yet (x) can self justify his/her action's with unjust term's, yet by my perception and the perception of the law, person (x) could not blame the school or teacher's for person's (x) smoking, even if the person(x)could prove that teacher's looked the other way while the student's intent was to make person (x) to smoke, the teacher's intent would still not be to make you smoke, so you still couldnt blame them or sue them ^.^

So logicaly (x) could justly lay blame on his/her own head for the end result of a habit of smoking, cant blame anyone els because they would allso lack intent in making you smoke. there are more reason's why (x) could only blame him/her self, but the main one's I have allready pointed out.

So long as the decision is voluntary and informed, then x alone is responsible because x is the only agent.

If x were compelled or tricked, then his behavior would be neither voluntary nor informed (or authentic, if you prefer), and something else would deserve agency for x's behavior.

Simply, x is lazy. I am an X and 'though I might be encouraged within the surroundings blame cannot fall on y or z.

The notion of 'cause and effect' is an obsolete linear illusion.
It is now understood as "mutually arising features of the same event".

if x=w, then w*2=x+y|x+z therefore y=z
obviously y cannot = z, since y has no influence on x aside from its' architecture.
z has a relevant influence on x, as does the reputation of y, which is direct relation of z|y.
so x|w = z/y|w which is inconclusive since we do not have a real number of what percentage is z|w

let's use q as q=% of z|w

x|w=q
but that is also inconclusive since it is unrealistic to say that x knows 100% of q.
let's assume that x knows 1/3 of q, since on a psychological level we already know that x is influenced by his peers that he is more than likely an intro/extroverted maladaptive personality...adaptives aren't wont to succumb to smoking for some reason...maybe it's because they have more confidence in themselves.

so 1/3|q=f now.

therefore x|w=f

let's place 1,000 students and staff at the school.
assume that a whopping 50% smoke.
therefore q=500|z

if 1/3q=f, then f=166|z

that makes x|w=16.6% of z
x has succumbed to the peer pressures of 16.6% of z, to commit to a death sentence which 83.4% of z had nothing to say about.

conclusion: x=w is due to x=x and nothing more.

i think this a riddiculously involved question. Which begins with what is your standard of self reliance. How much should a person have to take before they bend. Manipulation exists intentionally, unintentionally, and even cassually. Also define "justified". If it makes x feel better, why not? That doesn't hurt anyone but x and its x's choice to make. I guess i don't even think this has anything to do with ethics. Unless x hurts someone else with his choices.