How does George Orwell argue for books in his essay "Books vs. Cigarettes"?

George Orwell's initial anecdote in "Books vs. Cigarettes" regards the opinion that books are an expensive hobby, one that is out of reach for the common, middle-class person. Orwell proceeds to use himself as an above-average consumer of books and summarizes the types and general cost of the books he owns; roughly 900, collected over the course of fifteen years. After estimating the cost, he posits that he has spent about £25 GBP per year on the books; a below-average reader would spend less. He then compares his book expenditures to his recreational expenditures:

With prices as they now are, I am spending far more on tobacco than I do on books. I smoke six ounces a week, at half-a-crown an ounce, making nearly £40 a year.
[...]
Forty pounds a year would just about pay for a packet of Woodbines every day and half a pint of mild six days a week -- not a magnificent allowance. Of course, all prices are now inflated, including the price of books: still, it looks as though the cost of reading... does not amount to more than the combined cost of smoking and drinking.
(Orwell, "Books vs. Cigarettes," george-orwell.org)

His essential argument is that books are a lasting resource, unlike cigarettes, which are used up and must be repurchased. Books provide continual usage until they wear out, which could take many years, and his spending £25 on lasting books every year is far less than the £40 per year on consumable alcohol and tobacco. Orwell also points out that library books cost significantly less, and one can sell a stock of purchased books for about a third of their original price, thus receiving the entertainment and eduction of the book while regaining some of the cost; this stands opposed to cigarettes, which are bought and smoked, after which both money and cigarette are gone forever.

What is the summary of "Books vs. Cigarettes" by George Orwell?

"Books vs. Cigarettes" is George Orwell's defense of reading as a viable, renewable, and relatively inexpensive hobby, versus cigarettes as one-time consumables. Because books may be bought once and read many times, Orwell considers them superior to cigarettes as entertainment.

A couple of years ago a friend of mine, a newspaper editor, was firewatching with some factory workers. They fell to talking about his newspaper, which most of them read and approved of, but when he asked them what they thought of the literary section, the answer he got was: "You don't suppose we read that stuff, do you? Why, half the time you're talking about books that cost twelve and sixpence! Chaps like us couldn't spend twelve and sixpence on a book."
(Orwell, "Books vs. Cigarettes," george-orwell.com)

After this anecdote, Orwell sums up his own expenditures on books over the years, compared in round terms to spending on tobacco. He uses himself as an example, being in his opinion an above-average reader, and shows how even a large volume of books costs less by the year than cigarettes and are reusable besides. Orwell mentions the subjective nature of the value one receives from reading or smoking, and examines the value of a dictionary that costs little and is of use for years afterwards. The contrast with smoking is obvious; a cigarette can only be smoked once, while a book lasts for years. However, Orwell also allows that reading is less exciting than gambling or drinking, a subjective entertainment, unlike alcohol and cigarettes which are enjoyed in broadly similar ways. This leads him to his final point, refuting the initial anecdote; reading is not uncommon because of expense, but because it is less exciting and usually not done in company.