4. It puts the state at odds with its public health mission. Okay, so say we accept that it's the state's role to protect us from ourselves by curbing harmful activities that we engage in willingly. If that's what we want it to do, where's the logic of making it dependent on those self-same activities for a significant portion of its revenue? Every smoker who kicks the habit means less money for the City, the County, and the State. How hard to you think their administrations going to urge the public health authorities under their control to reduce the number of smokers? Would you hire Keebler's PR firm to promote the Atkins diet?

Actually, I think that making the funding depend on taxes from a habit they're trying to force out is brilliant (assuming cigarette taxes aren't the _sole_ financial backer of the entire public health system). Smokers' problems are a large drain on the public health system, what with emphysema and cancers and reduced disease resistance and generally poorer health, so by eliminating the need for treatment, you also eliminate the source of funding as gradually as you eliminate the need for it.