[Gabz]

I don’t know why not. In 09 the tax on loose cigarette tobacco rose by 2300%

You're correct - and don't forget, that is to fund health insurance for kids.

Since the ruling says the eds can impose a ta for not doing something, non-smokers, especially those who hailed that increased tax, should be required to pay a tax for NOT smoking. After all, it is for the children!

[cripplecreek]

You're correct - and don't forget, that is to fund health insurance for kids.

Here in Michigan, the state tax on tobacco also rose which lead to an inevitable decline (Plummet) in revenues. This in tun led to a search for something new to tax. One thing they seriously considered was taxing food eaten by restaurant employees.

I seriously believe we need to take a ball peen hammer to the forehead of the American public by letting us pay all the taxes directly at the point of sale.

[Jess79]

Since the ruling says the eds can impose a ta for not doing something, non-smokers, especially those who hailed that increased tax, should be required to pay a tax for NOT smoking. After all, it is for the children!

Just wait until they decide to tax parents who do not send their kids to public schools.