They are more of a burden to society than smokers.
The laws should be taken off the books. It's cheaper to not have the bad decision makers around. (anti Idiocracy)
Disclosure, I ride a MC every day.
They don’t call them donorcycles for nothing.
It is maybe dated a bit now. I think it refers to boomers (in the 90s/00s?) rather than modern riders. But still awkwardly accurate.
But this isn't an argument we accept in public health. If it was, we wouldn't provide any healthcare that prolonged life after someone was after working age.
Regardless there are still an awful lot of really dibilating conditions that massively affect productivity caused be tobacco related illnesses that isn't just death or cancer care.
It may well be a cost worth paying. I’m not arguing policy. OP’s math made incorrect assumptions. Just letting them know.
The use less. But they also are able to contribute less.
That said, yes a whole lotta money is spent on the last 0 to 6 months (or so) of life. From what I understand, this is a USA only problem.
The study I linked was based on the Netherlands. I suspect the cost difference will be true for most countries. Unless you just let people die earlier. But that’s a whole other discussion.
I don’t know if anyone has done any studies on productivity differences. That would be interesting.
Smokers (and the obese) are cheaper in health care costs than non-smokers. Why? To be blunt, because smokers die early.
Keeping someone alive into their 90s is more expensive than someone who dies of smoking derived illness in their 70s or younger. This is similarly true for the obese.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506