When everything is added up does the typical smoker cost a nation's health care system less that a non-smoker? Yes,smokers tend to die young but many of them (most,in fact) use up a ton of health care $$$ in the last 5...10...20 years of their lives.My Dad and my cousin are two examples.My Dad stopped smoking in his 70's after substantial,but not overwhelming,damage had been done to his lungs.He spent **lots** of time in the hospital and in doctors' offices....tests,X-rays,pills,etc,etc...in the last 10 years of his life.Except for his lungs he was in very good shape for a guy his age.
My cousin was even worse.She was a respiratory cripple for the last 10 years of her life.In the hospital more than she was out.She died young (65) but she did *not* die cheap.
On the other hand I have an 89 year old aunt that has smoked for probably 75 plus years. She has outlived 5 of her 7 children, all non-smokers and other than birthing children has never spent a day in the hospital. She's in excellent health and extremely active.
Your points are valid. However, I wonder where it stops. A neurologist friend of mine states without qualification that alcoholism is FAR more expensive on the medical side alone (the patients tend to be sick, but not die right away, and expensive organs [e.g. liver] are most affected.) He stated that a trip to any VA hospital will make it clear.
Some are already arguing that obesity and even being overweight costs as much or more.
I am a lifelong non-smoker, and my dad got lung cancer at 35 (it was caught earlier and beaten with surgery). I am still uncomfortable with the government making so big a fuss over it, even though I am no libertarian.
When the argument shifts from “interfering with other people in public places” to managing health-care costs, I see no logical argument angainst government controlling nearly every aspect of our lives.