> As they absolutely should.

No, they shouldn't, lol. No excuse for it at all.

> Australia has a free health care system and smokers are disproportionate in their use of limited resources.

Many countries have a similar health system, and there are other solutions that don't impact liberty like taxing cigarettes and putting that money back into the health system. Which is already done of course, making your argument moot.

> smokers are disproportionate in their use of limited resources.

Do they?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Sm...

This seems to suggest by killing the smokers earlier, the government avoids paying expensive pensions, among other things people need later in life.

Obviously I don't support smoking, just nitpicking here.

In Australia at least the biggest issue with the health sector is the lack of talented staff e.g. nurses.

Smokers despite being a net-positive contributor to the government's tax revenue doesn't change that they are a net-negative drain on society.

The first claim in the article states that early death and taxation that is the cost saving (and other claims refute that). Taxation is probably the major method of discouraging cigarette usage. So even if you accept the argument that smokers are paying their way through taxes and dying young, they only do so because of onerous government policies.