That may be correct, but it doesn't make the state's actions and the court's ruling in this case correct. In New York, the state sales tax is also assessed on the purchaser instead of the product -- which means that according to the letter of the law, a person who goes to New Jersey to purchase something and brings it back into New York must pay the New York sales tax on the product.
However, this does not mean that the state of New York has any authority to collect the tax in New Jersey. During New York City's last fiscal crisis they actually sent tax agents to the parking lots of New Jersey shopping malls to record license plates of customers from New York. The initiative came to a screeching halt when the New Jersey retailers ordered their security personnel to treat the New York tax authorities as criminals and have them arrested for trespassing, stalking, etc. -- because they had no legal authority to do this kind of thing outside the State of New York.
The problem is with taxERS (states) being more and more dependent on the tax resulting from the taxed substance (tobacco) itself, while simultaneously making the taxed substance (tobacco) harder and harder for the real taxees (consumers) to buy.
It is also a fact, regardless of propaganda, that strict bans making it harder for the taxee (consumer) to consume the taxed product (tobacco) have had a detrimental effect on other taxees, particularly in the service industry (restaurants and bars), to stay in business, let alone pay the business taxes that the taxER (state) is dependant upon.
Thus the taxER (state) is forced to find other sources of revenue in the form of nanny laws (like seatbelt laws), higher income tax to pay for those who don't pay tax (welfarers) and higher taxes on essential goods (food, clothing, gasoline) and - LOL - services (bars, restaurants, hotels) which are already suffereing from a lack of business due to a drop in taxee (consumer) generated revenue.
I never said the language of the findings wasn't legal. I did just illustrate how overregulation of that upon which the taxER (state) is dependent results hess tax collected from taxees (consumers and the businesses they frequent) is detrimental, rather than beneficial to the taxER (state) in the long run.
In English, the idea of collecting the tax isn't necessarily bad. The idea of raising the tax in order to recoup revenue shortfalls caused by making it so hard to buy the taxed product in the first place is bad, stupid, idiotic, moronic, and even lacks intelligence. Of course, it's "for the children"