This is a cynical argument for multiple reasons. First it is basically saying if smokers stop smoking their end of life care could cost more in the long run rather than dying early of cancer.

This ignores new treatments that are targeted and much more effective than previously thought possible. Someone who gets this treatment and related services would cost a lot more if they live to an old age. So no actual savings in this increasingly common scenario.

It also ignores quality of life. It may be cheaper for someone to die early from smoking, but their quality of life is significantly reduced. This not only affects their happiness and productivity, but also their families. Dying from lung disease is a horribly way to go.

I fully agree governments should be cracking down on diabetes. Allowing addictive, processed, and engineered food should be banned. It is time for food scientist to do good and stop addicting people with overly fat, sugary, salty foods for corporate profits.

You last line is pretty ridiculous. You don't want to pay for others healthcare because of their choices. Do you want to pay for healthcare because of a companies choice to pollute the environment which leads to a significant amount of cancer.

Do you feel comfortable with subsidizing petroleum when it also causes millions of deaths worldwide from lung and cardiovascular disease.

There are slightly bigger fish to fry than sun exposure, even if it is also important to consider.