Extraordinary claims require evidence, not snarky Google mentions. Spending amounts are for what specifically? Do those 2.6 billion account for second and third hand smoke? For smoking in pregnancy leading to problems?

▲

mytailorisrich 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't make any extraordinary claims...

Most of the price of a pack of cigarettes in the UK is tax. It is fairly well known that revenue is higher than cost to healthcare service (NHS, which is funded via general taxation), and data are public and very easily found. My previous comment with data was indeed literally the result of two Google queries (revenue amd cost) and were from official sources, which I mentioned.

You don't like the data? Fine. You want to do your own detailed research and enlighten us? Fine. I didn't comment to be cross-examined to death...

▲

greggoB 12 hours ago | parent [-]

This is HN, you should know to expect your comments will be scrutinized if not backed up by data. I provided an example in direct reply to your previous comment.

	▲	mytailorisrich 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I provided data although I commented that they were easily available because "what's your source" is the usual lazy retort. This is hostile cross-examination, not discussion. I suggest you read the guidelines before saying things like "this is HN" (although you are right that this is a commom behaviour here).