I know it's not PC in SV to say so, but I REALLy hate sin taxes. Smokers die younger, have fewer of the oh-so expensive end-of-life years, cost less as a result and yet still are social pariahs who have the privilege of paying extra taxes and extra for health insurance. Fair how?
Smokers may die younger, but the way they die is more expensive than living longer (years of respiratory illness). Also, smokers cause collateral damage through secondary smoke inhalation.
You can call it a sin tax, but another term is "disincentive tax".
Actually NE Journal of Medicine says that mass smoking cessation would increase total health care costs in long run. So not sure the logic for the disincentives, other than paternalism run amok.
"If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs."
The responses raise legitimate concerns about the article's analysis, and they also support my assertion (which continues to be the mainstream view of the costs of smoking-related health-care). For example, the analysis you cited ignores secondhand smoke health costs entirely and ignores a number of conditions associated with smoking. In the author's reply to the criticism, they paper over these concerns in an inadequate way.