Whether actually true or not, tobacco companies have definitely used this argument in lobbying against anti-smoking public health efforts, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Of course at best this argument assumes that you are looking at cost for a comparable standard of care, not cost for comparable health outcomes.
To me, this deflects from the main question of whether it is true or not. Or in other words, whether those quoting the "costs" of smoking (as a justification for further anti-smoking measures) are using dishonest propaganda. Also known as lying.
> To me, this deflects from the main question of whether it is true or not.
It points out that the question the claim addresses is different then that addressed by the opposing claim (and different than the policy concern that is usually beoing addressed.)
Which means its truth is orthogonal, rather than opposed, to the truth of the other claim.
Of course at best this argument assumes that you are looking at cost for a comparable standard of care, not cost for comparable health outcomes.