[Timesink]

This is absolutly criminal!

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll just toss the question out there and hope someone is: Isn't there a point past which taxing any product is illegal government interference in commerce? I mean, 50 cents a pack is one thing, but once the government starts intentionally jacking the prices so high that almost nobody can afford the product, does that not violate any laws?

[Maelstrom]

Now you know the reason for the War Between the States.

The South said "Yes, there's a limit."
The North said "No, there's not."

Interesting how history repeats itself, no?

[Judith Anne]

An excellent question. I'll keep track of this thread to see if you get some responses. I too would like a legal beagle to comment.

[Gabz]

I'm not a lawyer, but have dealt with the state legislature for so many years that I can honestly say I do not believe there is a limit at which a tax becomes equivalent to interfering with commerce.

In fact the government of New York City is perfectly within their rights to confiscate that which they would consider contraband, in this case cigarettes without a NYC tax stamp. Granted, unless you get pulled over for something else, I don't think NY's Finest are going to be stopping motorists coming into the city checking for out of city or out of state purchased cigarettes. But they can do it.

[Hunble]

You are correct. In the early days, each State enforced taxes upon products between each State.

It became so impossible, that the Constitution addressed that issue and it is now known as the "Commerce Clause" which has been so abused since FDR.

This taxation between each of the States is exactly why the Federal government was granted this power.

No problem, I will just exploit this stupidity for my own personal profits.

[Publius6961]

I mean, 50 cents a pack is one thing, but once the government starts intentionally jacking the prices so high that almost nobody can afford the product, does that not violate any laws?

Just the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Taxing a legal product, and thus indirectly a defined segment of the population exclusively, would appear to violate it.
When at the same time no gay-related products are specially taxed, and AIDS, (unlike tobacco) is 100% fatal.