[nickff]

There is some evidence that smoking actually reduces total healthcare expenditure, as smokers die more quickly than non-smokers (who tend to linger in hospitals and cost a lot of money at the end of their lives). If true, does this mean smoking should be subsidized?

[penneyd]

Surely smokers die sooner, not quicker. Lung cancer and associated issues vs dying of natural causes are for sure a bigger healthcare burden.

[jcampbell1]

It is pretty well studied and lung cancer is one of the cheapest and quickest ways to die. A lot of smokers also drop dead from heart attacks.

Smokers do have higher healthcare costs when young, and miss more workdays, but in the US where government is paying social security and Medicare, smokers dip into the public coffers much less than their non-smoking peers.

[EForEndeavour]

Wow, what? Could you link to some of these studies that you imply support lung cancer being "one of the cheapest and quickest ways to die"? That's so outlandishly beyond the pale of reason as well as my second-hand experience of the disease that it beggars belief and I honestly can't tell if you're joking or something.

This page helpfully presents enormous per-patient costs of lung and other cancers, estimating ~USD$100k for care in the final year of life alone: https://progressreport.cancer.gov/after/economic_burden

Lung cancer symptoms often appear in late stages, which might explain the "quick" part of your comment, but come on. We aren't exactly talking death by gunshot or asphyxiation here. Symptoms of lung cancer include chest pain, a persistent cough, coughing up blood, and metastatic bone pain or headache, none of which seem quick or pleasant: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lung-cancer/s...