At best they reach a point of lesser returns, or even no returns.
As far as health concerns, I have studied the health question of smoking tobacco extensively. I can tell you that, at most, for overall health, smoking ups your chance of ANY health issues by approximately 30%. It ups your risk of a health issue that could be life threatening by approximately 10%. Note, not a health issue that WILL kill you, but one that MIGHT.
In addition, smokers pay more than enough in taxes to pay for any health costs they may incur. This includes shorter life span causing smokers, in general, to not get as much during their later years.
Now, WHY is this tax being promulgated? Not to pay for education, or health issues. Read the article. It is no more than social engineering. Someone doesn't want smokers to smoke. That's it, that's all, the end.
First they came for the smokers, then the soda drinkers of New York, and the slippery slope gets a coat of grease.
1) I sympathize with the concerns of Freepers and others about not using the tax code for social engineering. In an ideal world I would agree. In our current situation, we have little alternative. Either we'll be using the tax code to promote conservative social values (i.e., giving discounts to traditional families for marriage) or the liberals will do the same for their agendas. Options like the flat tax would change things, but for now they're not on the table.
2) I know the owner of Discount Smoke Shop. He has a home in a rural part of our county. I'm sympathetic to the arguments that current Missouri tax policy helps businesses that sell cigarettes near Missouri's borders. That means less to me than it would if tobacco were a major industry in our state, but it is a factor. If I owned a convenience store in St. Louis or Kansas City or elsewhere near Missouri's borders I would have a strong economic motive to vote against this tax.
3) Constitutionally, we need to recognize that taxing and licensing alcohol and tobacco have a long history dating back to colonial days. This isn't new. It's a legitimate tax, but just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's good policy. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating using the constitutional provision to issue letters of marque authorizing privateers, for example.
Bottom line — I can see arguments for or against this tax. I don't think it's crystal clear either way.