From the "unintended consequences" department (and Fark) comes this story about the hardships some states are feeling from passing higher cigarette taxes.

If you're a statist who likes penalizing behaviors, cigarette taxes have been great. If you're a statist who likes government spending, cigarette taxes have been terrible. Who can count the conflicts of interest? Tobacco subsidies, voters who want to ban smoking, libertarians who don't want to ban smoking, more tax revenue, fewer smokers so less tax revenue...

You'd think after teaching so many principles of economics classes that we've come a long way, baby. But there are the obligatory amusing quotes:

Think taxes are determined by the inelasticity of demand? "Bob Kurtter, a state budget watcher at Moody's Investors Service, said it's an easy call for budget-challenged states to turn to sin taxes: 'They're the most socially acceptable form of taxes you can raise.'"

Big Brother Creepiness in California, which apparently has a "Board of Equalization." It employs Anita Gore (I guess Al is in demand) who said "But if smoking continues to decline, then revenues would continue to decline."

But, you could see the glass as half full: "'The wonderful thing about tobacco revenues is when they go down, there's less smoking,' said Eric Lindblom, who heads policy research at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington."