People who live into old age do cost a lot. However, being poisoned isn't cheap either, even discounting lung cancer. I'm not a physician but I know they tell people to stay away from smoking. Nicotine, amongst others, is not a nice substance. Poisoned people aren't as productive and this is bad for taxes in general.

It could be the maths favours people smoking and slowly dying before their time, though I doubt it. Is it likely that President Bush commissioned a team of physicians and economists to consider this smoking tax? And the high cost of people smoking less, living to old age and being a healthcare burden is his reason for the threatened veto?