[kerryusama04]

My two cents. Looking forward to other perspectives. I For the record, I only smoke the occasional cigar.

A) We have a unique perspective on new taxes in MO because they squandered the tobacco settlement money and the last time they got taxes for roads, they didn't build the roads in STL or KC.

B) People who raise taxes on products they condemn are no better than street corner drug dealers.

C) Who wants a tax in their constitution?

D) Trying to raise revenue on a product at the same time as trying to get people to quit using it is folly.

E) Our cigarette tax is so low that people from other states buy them here and we would have lost that revenue. This is such a phenomena that KS passed a law specifically addressing this because they were losing money.

F) The Gas stations all lobbied against it.

[sockmonkey]

How much is a carton of "premium" cigarettes (Marlboro, Virginia Slims) in MO?

In TX, the legislature has upped the taxes on a carton by ten dollars, beginning January 1, 2007. The money goes to fund schools.

[Conservababe]

I'm beginning to think your A was the determining factor. Also the casino revenue was supposed to be used exclusively for education. Instead it went into the general fund and was squandered.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Our cigarette tax is so low that people from other states buy them here and we would have lost that revenue

New Hampshire has lobbyists in Massachusetts always pushing for cigarette and alchohol tax increases.

[StarCMC]

You also have to add in the (IMO) very effective ads that talked about how we can't trust the government in Jeff City to actually use the money the was it's supposed to use it. (i.e. on tobacco cessation programs for smokers)

We ALL know that while the gambling money went in the front door of the education system, the money grabbers in Jeff City pulled money previously used for education out the back door so that the promised increase in education funding was a bald-faced lie. I think a lot of people are still smarting over that.

Further, the idea that circulated that the funds not specifically earmarked for tobacco cessation programs could be spent on funding other "medically necessary procedures" like abortions for underprivileged women was reprehensible.

[Politically Correct]

My two cents. Looking forward to other perspectives. I For the record, I only smoke the occasional cigar. A) We have a unique perspective on new taxes in MO because they squandered the tobacco settlement money and the last time they got taxes for roads, they didn't build the roads in STL or KC. B) People who raise taxes on products they condemn are no better than street corner drug dealers. C) Who wants a tax in their constitution? D) Trying to raise revenue on a product at the same time as trying to get people to quit using it is folly. E) Our cigarette tax is so low that people from other states buy them here and we would have lost that revenue. This is such a phenomena that KS passed a law specifically addressing this because they were losing money. F) The Gas stations all lobbied against it.

I think that you nailed it.
It would seem that no matter how much money you send to Jeff City they spend it all. (And frequently on the most ridiculous things and occasionally on what's needed.)
Also agree with the poster about looking up the word fungible. If a particular need (questionable at best) is assured funding that just frees up the rest of the money to be squandered on some policos favorite boondogle.

[peggybac]

I remember going to MO to buy liquor because it was so much cheaper, then driving around before crossing State Line so the cops wouldn't stop me.