Typical nonsense here concerning the increased cigarette tax. Let's go over the Principles-level basics...
1) Not liking something is not a reason to tax it, not in the economic sense anyway. Though it just struck me that it might be a good example of the divide between political costs and economic costs. Perhaps we should tax the "hot, juicy steak" smoke since I don't like the feeling of hunger it encourages?
2) Some people say that taxing cigarettes is good since people "have to have them," i.e., the demand for them is inelastic. Fair enough; low deadweight loss in taxation is a reasonable goal, and Ramsey would be proud. Then people come around and say it's good to tax them because it will significantly reduce their consumption, and that's a good thing since cigarettes are little white evil sticks. I want these people to argue with each other. Sometimes it's the same people saying both things.
3) Saying that taxing smokers makes fiscal sense since "it hits us in our pocketbooks eventually" (via public health care) is a misplaced argument; that's a problem with the public provision of health, not the smoking of cigarettes.
Let it also be said that I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, don't anticipate doing so and hope that I don't, yet cigarette taxation, and its increasing excess, is an embarassment.
I'm also curious if a study has been done to compare, in a cost/benefit framework, the costs of increased public medical burden due to smoking, but in light of the increased benefits of early death to the Social Security system.