[Drango]

So what happens if, let’s say, California has estimated cigarette tax revenue at $2.0B after the increase and everyone stops buying cigarettes in California.

That's a win. Less children will become addicts. Less people will die prematurely. Less people drowning in their own fluids while they gasp for air.

Thanks for asking.

[Mastador1]

The programs that the liberals set up will never go away, the cry it’s for the children that all the idiots bought from meathead reiner will continue to be cried and as usual the children will never see the benefit of this boondoggle, only the elite. So no matter how many people stop smoking the demand for dollars will continue and then who will we demonize more, the drinkers? soda pop, candy, fast food? Count me out of the gimme dat crowd.

[Grams A]

But you didn’t respond to the rest of my statement. Based on past history, California never cuts expenses to compensate for the loss of revenue from anything - in this case cigarettes. There seem to be at least three issues involved. One is how much tax should be assessed and on what. Another is the issue of trying to control personal behavior by raising taxes on that activity and the third is freedom of choice.

You don’t seem to mind tax increases on cigarettes because you obviously don’t approve of smoking yet tax increases on everything else is just not acceptable.

Just confusing stance which seems to ignore personal choice.