[snapplebobapple]

there is also a strong question as to whether smokers are actually a net cost to government or not. They draw decades less old age pension, have decades less medical visits, etc. I am extremely unconvinced that a large cancer related medical cost now has a higher net present value than a stream of government pension payouts, health costs, etc for decades ended with a large medical cost for some other reason. This is the correct comparable for smoking vs non smoking if you are contemplating limiting peoples freedoms and i dont think it holds water.

[Milpotel]

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3533014/ (Finland, 2012)

[snapplebobapple]

So the answer is smokers are cheaper so its stupid for the government to dump on smokers like they have been?

[intended]

If your government requires its people to be dead, it is by nature a foul and evil thing.

[snapplebobapple]

thats one wrong way to interpret it, yes. The right way is a government choosing criteria to determine how much it should interfere in your personal choices and in that context net cost to the government is a reasonable metric to consider, although not the only metric

[Mawr]

This gets easier to answer once you consider that, unlike an alcoholic, a smoker directly harms others around him, not just himself. And that's just on top of all the indirect damage.

And then, even as for strictly the damage he does to himself, cancer is far from the only risk.