First of all the study you posted doesn't seem to take into account the increase in productivity per worker that a non-smoking (and thus healthier) population brings.
Secondly, and more to the point, your study doesn't address my main argument, i.e. how the money is spent. I have no problem with using my tax money on reasonable healthcare that actually increases longevity and general quality of life, but lung cancer is something that a large amount of people bring on themselves, and that's entirely unnecessary. Not to mention that the treatment of smokers takes a lot of working hours from doctors, something that also tends to be in short supply.
And thirdly, and most importantly, the idea that you don't need to fix a smaller problem until you fix all larger ones is utterly prepostrous. Quite frankly the entire argument that stopping smoking would somehow not be a good thing unless the problem of global warming is also fixed is idiotic in the extreme.