[wildbill]

As far as I know there have been no studies on the effect of reduced tobacco use on Federal and state taxes.

Higher and higher taxes have had an impact on tobacco use, probably as much as advertising campaigns on the health hazards of use. This follows the axiom that if you want less of something tax it to death.

However, legislators have been careful to calculate their tax schedules on tobacco so as not to kill the golden goose.

I believe most of these excise taxes are used as general funds and not for tobacco reduction so the long term effect of reducing these funds will be an enormous reduction of income for government use.

Where will the legislators look for taxpayers to replace the lost income?

[Daffynition]

The opposite in CT: $1-A-Pack Hike Brings In More Than Expected

The legislature, at the bidding of our emperor gov, has said they are considering a *tax-free* week liquor sales.....many Nutmeggers go to neighbor [no-tax] states for their booze, as it is.

Politicos have been whining that revenues from cigs, booze, the home building slump, and gambling are way down to the state coffers:

**Contributions to the state fell in tandem with the lower revenues, since the casinos give a quarter of their slot revenue to the state. Foxwoods sent $9.8 million to the state's special revenue fund, while Mohegan Sun sent $11.4 million.**

Hartford in the near future...

[Olog-hai]

Well, there’s also a cigarette “black market” of sorts, where people in high-tax areas buy from states with far lower tobacco taxes, often from “smugglers”. This happens around the world too, especially in Europe. It’s so prevalent that it’s even been nicknamed “buttlegging” (in spite of the sexual overtones) . . .