[alan]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-468es.html

[Hkmp5sd]

Politicians see a cigarette tax as an easy way to get more money without taking a hit for raising taxes on everyone. Plus, they can get the moral image of trying to force smokers to quit, thereby saving their lives. They could care less about its effects on crime. Prohibition proved you cannot regulate morality, so it should be obvious that consumers will still find a way to get their product. If smokers can't or don't want to pay the high taxes, they will of course turn to the black market.

[Art Eatman]

Prohibition didn't last nearly so long as our "War on Drugs". Folks back 70 years ago were a lot smarter than the equivalent folks nowadays.

Back during the 1970s I worked with/among political types. Texas legislature, and movers and shakers thereof. You've never in your life ever imagined such naive people as to any knowledge of human nature. And, whether there or in Congress, none of them have any understanding of the contribution that human nature makes to what we call "unintended consequences" or "unanticipated side effects".

I sincerely believe that there is not one iota of hope for these people, divorced from reality as they are. They really seem to think you can herd people, as opposed to leading them.

Art

[Lord Grey Boots]

Some one really needs to look into the impact of a new Cigarette tax in Canada a few years back. Folks didn't want to pay the higher prices, so cigarettes were shipped/smuggled across the NY-Quebec border by the truckload, and the CDN gov't LOST a lot of revenue.

The CDN gov't ended up dropping the tax hike.

[Peetmoss]

I don't have to pay any taxes on smokes if I don't want to. Just so happens I am to lazy to drive the 6 miles to the Indian Reservation.

[F=ma]

(rhetorical question...)

When state/local governements make far more profit than the manufacturer, why is it that only the manufacturer is named in the tobacco lawsuits? Jeeze crise, the gubbment even proffits from the lawsuits!

:confused:

[hammer4nc]

Another viewpoint, albeit somewhat cynical...the politicians are very familiar with the black market. Their designated "associates" are in place to cater to public demand, before the new taxing legislation is ever voted on.

[alan]

Art Eatman wrote:

I sincerely believe that there is not one iota of hope for these people, divorced from reality as they are. They really seem to think you can herd people, as opposed to leading them.


Funny you should notice that Art. The really sad thing about it is the fact that it is surprisingly easy for the political types to herd all to many of The People.

F=ma wrote:

When state/local governements make far more profit than the manufacturer, why is it that only the manufacturer is named in the tobacco lawsuits? Jeeze crise, the gubbment even proffits from the lawsuits!

Re suits against cigarette makers brought be various elements of "government", given their vested economic interest in the sale and distribution of cigaretts, I have been asking the same question since the first of these suits was filed. Haven't had any sort of answer from "government" though, and don't really expect to get one. Their silence is answer enough, all by itself.

[Justin]

Re suits against cigarette makers brought be various elements of "government", given their vested economic interest in the sale and distribution of cigaretts, I have been asking the same question since the first of these suits was filed. Haven't had any sort of answer from "government" though, and don't really expect to get one. Their silence is answer enough, all by itself. Of course, on the one hand, you have a government that is attempting to tax and regulate the tobacco industry out of existence, and on the other, you have tobacco farmers getting huge amounts of money from Uncle Sugar to support their dwindling livlihood.:scrutiny: