Ask a public-health/nutrition student

[Aractus]

Because it costs money (a lot of money), and the government doesn't get a benefit from it. Lung cancer (where the risk of mortality is) is a disease of old age. It is well known that most people who smoke take up smoking as adults (although some people do before they're 18), and it usually takes at least 20-30 years after a person starts smoking to be diagnosed with lung cancer. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70. I believe (from memory) that the average number of years lost is about 10 years. On average, most of the years lost are in retirement, not in working age. Therefore, lowering the smoking rate lowers the lung cancer incidence in old age, and that in turn creates a larger burden on the healthcare system (particularly aged care).

It's ridiculously expensive, off-hand I believe in Australia the cost to reduce smoking by about 1% point (so for example lowering the rate from 16% to 15%) is about $1 billion because you have 230,000 people, of which most (so say 150,000) will live ten years longer into retirement, costing that extra $1 billion (which is only an actual cost of ~$650-700 per person per year).

Governments are reluctant to do things that hurt the bottom-line. They will raise the tobacco tax, because the increase in tax offsets their losses in the cost of aged-care.

I can't speak for your country, but in Australia Nicotine patches are listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, so they are subsidised. But even if they weren't, they're still a lot cheaper than cigarettes themselves, thus the cost of patches (or gum/inhalers) shouldn't be a barrier to using them. Gum & inhalers are not, which should send the message to smokers that patches are viewed by experts to be a more effective treatment option.