Penalising the usage of a service that is objectively neither good or bad by definition, is not a proper decision.
I say "objectively" because as all of you pointed out, it can be used by criminals (bad) or by honest people who care about their privacy (good).

Just like the internet in its entirety, is used for good and malicious reasons.
Just like social media are used for good and bad reasons.
Just like a knife (like someone said above) is used for good and bad reasons.
Just like currency is used for good and bad reasons.

(and the list goes on)

good point there no one actually uses mixers to get the coins out of your wallet or exchange it only makes it untraceable maybe some people think that if not for mixers they would still have gotten their coins back but you really wouldn’t be in that position if you were protecting your own coins very securely in the first place

Good point. I personally would use such a service if it provides enough hints to be trustworthy (e.g. a long existence). Of course this kind of service would have to target specifically privacy-related usage. But as the blockchain is public and it's easy to deanonymize oneself (e.g. publishing an address somewhere in social media, not doing proper wallet "management" with tools like Electrum) this "legal" mixing segment should be big enough.

An interesting addition for such a service would be a "trustworthy" chain analysis feature, where the user can enter the affected addresses/UTXOs and the mixer already providing a stance about the probability of the funds being frozen. Such a service should however restrict "marking" and "freezing" funds to clearly (=proven) criminal usage like recent hacks.

I could also imagine a "tiered" logging policy, where instead of freezing a log is kept (only!) in the case of coins of dubious origin, and the time until this log is deleted depends on the risk related to the coins. The user would then be able to use the coins after mixing them but dubious coins would still be possible to be tracked.

This might be an unpopular opinion but I do believe that mixers are bad and that it's really difficult for me to find any good that it can do for someone or to the society. Mixers are known tools for money launderers and basically people that have something to hide so I don't get how there's good in it when the ones that are going to benefit the most are the people that don't do anything good for the society and community.

If you're using it commit tax related stuff, wouldn't you be contributing to the debilitation of many government programs in your country? Maybe there's the argument that you don't want to contribute when your government is a corrupted one but that can't be the only justification to evade taxes. There's also the argument of privacy, I mean there are more privacy coins out there already that doesn't have any need for mixers and shouldn't we be fine with pseudonymity already? With the current digital footprint that we have, pretty sure that using mixer won't save our privacy anyway and that a determined enough investigation would end with people still getting discovered eventually.

Well, criminals still prefer Fiat (cash) over Bitcoin or Monero. The main issue is not criminals using mixers for "money laundering", but it's the fact that such services don't comply with KYC/AML rules. This is what angers most governments. While a regulatory-compliant mixer will face backlash from the community, it'll be seen with good eyes by the government. It's the path mixing services will take in the future.

As for non-custodial mixers (aka decentralized mixers), we should expect further scrutiny from mainstream governments. Anyone caught using or developing such mixers will face fines or even jail time. The same fate awaits Bitcoin if it were to become a privacy coin in the future (which I highly doubt). "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", right?