Although the Greeks have one of the highest per capita tobacco consumption rates in the world, their country shows a relatively low incidence of lung cancer. In an obscure annex to its famous 1992 anti-smoking report, the Environmental Protection Agency explains this paradox by high fruit consumption in Greece. Yet, in general, the medical literature strongly supports the hypothesis that smoking is dangerous for the smoker's health. Let us take this conclusion for granted. Risk to limb or life is merely a type of cost that will occur with a probability lower than one but higher than zero.
Individuals presumably take risks into account when they make choices.
Before we look at the main Public Health arguments and the economic counter arguments, let's have a first look at how the two approaches differ on the basic concepts of benefits and costs. Economics starts with subjective individual preferences. The Public Health school adopts a radically different methodology. Starting from the observation that smoking is bad for the smoker's health, it goes on to conclude that individuals do not derive benefits from smoking. Not only does the Public Health school neglect subjective benefits of smoking, as evaluated by each individual, but it often reveals a confused notion of cost.