[quote=@catchamber]
[@Shoryu Magami]
The US government got [url=https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0099.pdf]$16 billion in 2015 from cigarette sales taxes[/url]. That's more than enough to build an ionic smog vacuum tower in its 10 most populated cities. China built one in Beijing last year, and [url=http://inhabitat.com/chinas-crazy-smog-sucking-vacuum-tower-is-actually-working/]it seems to be working[/url]. Carbon dioxide causes respiratory problems for urbanites, as it's denser than regular air. Carbon monoxide is less dense, but causes more health issues by latching onto red blood cells.

By preventing these problems, you prevent medical expenses that drain economic productivity, so it's very profitable.
[/quote]

16 billion dollars raised is by far not enough to offset the [url=https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/]170 billion dollars in health costs each year[/url] as estimated by the CDC, who like-wise estimates the economy looses 156 billion a year from pre-mature death of other-wise working-age individuals, or from illness related to the habit. Expenditures for smoking-related treatement were on [url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt/olr/htm/94-R-0800.htm]50 billion in 1993[/url], [url=https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/jul/08_0153.htm]22 billion in 2003[/url], and as of a 2016 report cost the health-care system [url=https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6548a2.pdf]39 billion[/url].

State governments are supposed to appropriate a minimal amount of funds from tobacco sales taxes per year to cessation/quitting programs but so far only two states even meet the recommended level (North Dakota, Alaska) and one state (Oklahoma) even bothers to meet the half-way mark.

You could use the funds to build smog-scrubbing towers in ten cities, but the results of the tower in Beijing are arguably pretty poor for a working model and its placement hardly strategic. The article you posted too even admits:

[quote]
UPDATE: However, there’s some debate over just how accurate the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s statistic is, and how effectively the smog-sucking tower really works. The Chinese Forum of Environmental Journalists (CFEJ) discussed another assessment of the tower. The best statistic gathered didn’t meet World Health Organization standards, according to CFEJ, for PM2.5 particles. They said ultimately the tower is very limited in scope. They suggested the tower be renamed the “Haze Warning Tower” instead, in keeping with Roosegaarde’s goal of raising awareness, as the government, scientists, or entrepreneurs seek better solutions to address China’s air pollution issue.
[/quote]

[url=http://shanghaiist.com/2016/11/24/smog_free_tower_sucks.php]Of additional critical reading to this effect.[/url]

This pretty much keeps the dark narrative cloud hanging over China in terms of numbers its own government puts out: that being they're over-inflated. The Chinese government isn't a very transparent or approachable organization, less so than the US or US state governments; all qualms aside. And speaking to an engineer friend of mine he raises concerns over the program based on its non-strategic placement of the emplacement, that it's not actually anywhere that does any good at the source and is a mere publicity stunt. They could have installed it in or near a smokestack to scrub the exhaust as it comes out and to help shoot the problem then and there, which is really the real theme in China: it needs to clean up its industry at the very source.

But using that 16 billion in tax earnings figure to buy a few towers still doesn't resolve the ill-effects of smoking on an expenditure level. As it stands, and as I pointed out, the costs associated with smoking still outweigh the reward from tax earnings by a ration of 2:1 against smoking at its best estimates, and you could find more cost-effective things to do with that money that building ten effectively publicity stunt towers.