I would be surprised if the stimulating effects outstripped the dying early effects, given that in one case you are less performant and in the other you cease t

I would be surprised if the stimulating effects outstripped the dying early effects, given that in one case you are less performant and in the other you cease to exist. I agree that we should be honest with the stats, which is why I think it was disingenuous to claim that $500 billion was wildly off when the reported costs from the CDC were a substantial portion of that. Sure, we can start considering secondary effects like cost savings from people dying early and productivity lost, etc. etc. But all I'm saying is that I don't think the original claim was on its face absurd. Agreed that we shouldn't be doing some absurd cost-benefit analysis for the economy when considering whether to combat smoking, obviously people dying is sort of a priori bad.