I agree with your point that you “strongly disagree with the principle of the government is helping people by taking more of our money.” But, I still think that misses the most important and fundamental fact that the government has no right nor obligation to “social engineer” public behavior (however ridiculous it may be) through tax policy.

Of course, I may be too libertarian in my outlook. Even if I am, it seems to me that government shouldn’t be using tax policy to accomplish those ends. If people make poor choices that cause lung cancer then let them, just don’t require me to pay for their treatment. Requiring personal responsiblity would probably be a far more effective deterrent. If not, then stupid is as stupid does.

First of all, I don’t believe it will “reduce the number of smokers in the state.” I don’t think that someone makes the decision to smoke or not smoke based on a marginal price increase or decrease. I don’t think anyone is saying to themselves you know if cigarettes were only about 50 cents a pack cheaper I just might pick up the habit. Instead, the decrease in demand will be existing smokers buying fewer cigarettes (or as Greenberg points out buying them across the state line.)

Second and more importantly, I strongly disagree with the principle of the government is helping people by taking more of our money. The state is not doing smokers any favors by making them pay more for their cigarettes. If Halverson keeps up his argument, then soon they will start taxing my hot wings, cheeseburgers, and french fries as well. Gee, thanks!

In simple terms, there might be fewer people smoking but they will pay whatever the price is for the cigarettes so let’s tax the heck out of them. Maybe we can get them to double dip and buy some of Halter’s lottery tickets with they pick up their Marlboros.

On a related note, one big winner from policies like these nationally has been tobacco merchants on Indian reservations, who can do high-volume business at considerably lower levels of taxation.