As for the "collectivist" as you call it argument being tired, well, you might be tired of hearing it but that doesn't make it any less true or germaine. Addicts of all stripes, including smokers, do cost the rest of us money and resources. Smokers and other addicted people exercise their right to engage in activity that diminishes their health over time. Many of them end up relying on the gov't to provide the care they need as a result of their addiction. I object to having my tax dollars going to pay for care required by people who are sick because of the choices they made. It doesn't matter to me if the sickness is AIDS, LC, Heart disease, liver failure, etc...if the behaviour leading to the disease was willful, in the face of what is known, then I object to having to pay for it.
I would suspect, since you are on this forum, that if the argument were restricted to paying benefits for adults who chose to destroy themselves with booze you would not be first in line to spend your dollars.
I see, then hurling insults is what's driving you.
Smokers die younger, and as a result actually cost "us" less in medical expenses than most health cultists who linger on, requiring much more end-of-life health care.
This extra health care at the end of their long, long lives, puts an added burden on younger taxpayers who are working to pay for the glorious socialized medical care. This adds stress to their lives, with the potential that their health will be harmed.
I propose the Soylent Green solution for anyone who, because of their pristine lifestyle, lives long enough to be a burden to the taxpayers. It's costing all of us, after all.
I would suspect, since you are on this forum, that if the argument were restricted to paying benefits for adults who chose to destroy themselves with booze you would not be first in line to spend your dollars.
I would prefer that the government get out of spending tax dollars on health care, period. The hysterical busybodies the system has spawned are argument enough for this.