I don't smoke, although I come from a smoking family. The only one surviving, besides me, has quit.

I don't think taxpayers are subsidizing cigarette smokers, unless you're referring to health care costs. But that also applies to people who eat too much, don't exercise, sit too much, etc. If you add up everyone who has unhealthful habits, you could say that we're subsidizing most of us, which makes the idea meaningless.

Some can quit, some can't. I think it depends on their circumstances, since any kind of addiction is a response to stress. Which itself is a main cause of poor health. So I think the trade off for some people, who have no way to change their circumstances, would be which is worse, smoking or being a nervous wreck? Tough choice. Maybe we need anxiety medications that actually work, with no debilitating side effects. Maybe we need social changes to reduce stress.

Judging by what you write, I'd say that you're high-strung enough.