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"
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
I really have to research, though, whether Indian tribes are truly separate nations within this nation, which I had gathered was the original thrust of the dispute. I don't think they are. They appear to be semi-autonomous. I only base my observations on how the Cherokee are treated here. It may have something to do with the way the "treaty" was set up.[shrug]. Like I said, I need to do some homework.