@Mitch okay well it makes a lot of sense for acute, lethal diseases or wars. For most people that don't smoke or drink too much, it's chronic coagulation disorders or obesity-related problems that lower life expectancy, and they are treated with almost always low- or moderate-cost therapies over a span of decades (only hospitalizations would cost a lot). But smoking often causes chronic conditions as well: Increases the incidence rate of several cancers, increases organ damage, increases

. . . the rate of asthma and COPD etc. These often require moderate- or high-cost chronic treatment, so it doesn't really follow that smoking would reduce costs.

Though of course one needs to do the math. I'm not One, Jet Li is.

@M.A.R. That is also what I read: that smokers aren't necessarily cheap qua healthcare. But it was very hard to really calculate, so it is uncertain whether or not they are cheaper and by how much.

@Cerberus to catch my breath

It's not simple. The article is very short.

@Mitch You were foaming?

@Mitch Hmm.

Not simple, I believe you!

@Cerberus I ain't some macchiato frappacino whatever those frothy milk coffee drinks are.

frappocino?

frappucino!

No idea.

I looked it up. two p's 1 u two c's

frappuccino