Lobbying groups are known to pay people to comment spam like this. The irony is too great though, the oil/gas industry has about $6 trillion in subsidies per year when you factor in environmental damage.
Your argument seems a little silly.
That seems much more clearcut than who exactly benefits from various economic policies and government actions.
A few reasons why it's silly. You can't accurately measure it, so it's a somewhat useless metric. Also, everything is interdependent if you look at it that way.
Rich people are being subsidized by landlords due to rent control!
Alcohol companies are being subsidized because they don't pay for crashes caused by drunk drivers.
It goes on and on and it doesn't add much value.
E.g. healthcare costs go up with age because that's when people start dying. Smokers die at an earlier age, so they experience those costs earlier. Is this correct? Who knows, but it's one of the many ways in which the argument you wrote could be invalid.
Furthermore, healthcare costs don't reflect the complete picture. Firstly, lost productivity is an issue. Secondly, we may not want a society where ritual suicide is encouraged at a pre-determined age with the goal of reducing healthcare costs.
Obviously I know this isn't what you're arguing. You're right in saying that alcohol and tobacco taxes aren't used to offset higher costs to healthcare. In most cases they're supposed to be a cost pressure to change consumption.
Smokers are subsidizing everyone!! How do you solve for that?