Yep. Already they are paying well above their cost.
I always laugh at the whole second smoke issue because it is farcical by and large. I don't like getting a huge amount of smoke in my face on the street, but I also don't like getting a huge amount of diesel smoke in my face. But it happens.
I'm a huge fan of banning smoking indoors in publlic areas. But outside? Who gives one? Live and let live. Health issues from second hand smoke and not going to occur because you once caught of whiff of someones lit ciggie.
I don't smoke either and support things like not selling cigarettes alongside sweets and Pokomon cards (we don't) and banning smoking indoors in a public place (I thought we did).
It was banned from all public indoors and in work places here some time ago ?? Is that not the case everywhere else? Many departments and businesses here don't allow it outside the front of their premises where the public pass or enter either.
Anyway, hiking tax right up because of a few that might let smoke waft in someones direction would be like making all drivers pay more tax for those few that speed or run red lights. The normal rationale would be to target the ones who are breaking the law or creating a new one IF that was an/the issue .