By proposing to balance DirigoChoice, in part, upon a 50-cent per-pack tax increase on tobacco makes us wonder what is being smoked in Augusta.

The political notion of taxing smokers for a health insurance program is understandable; the health risks of smoking are undeniable, and the burden of smoking-related illnesses and diseases drives the cost of care and insurance.

Smoking is an individual decision. It makes sense that by choosing to smoke, you choose to injure yourself. Therefore, you – the smoker – should be liable for paying for the cost of care.

The argument is a classic, and one that should gain more traction in certain arenas than it does. It’s arguable that people receiving taxpayer-funded health care, like MaineCare, should be penalized for smoking, for example.

As a fiscal policy, however, using tobacco taxes as a dedicated source is too problematic. The tax revenue is unreliable. In the state’s current revenue forecast, cigarette and tobacco tax revenues are estimated to plummet $18 million from pre-December through March, according to the state’s forecasting committee.

(By comparison, liquor and gambling tax revenues were slated to increase slightly – $430,000 and $837,000, respectively – during the same period, according to a forecasting analysis by the Maine Municipal Association.)

This is promising from a social perspective, because it means Mainers are purchasing fewer tobacco products. But it should be frightening from a policy perspective, because it means DirigoChoice’s funding would be built on a shaky revenue foundation.

Cigarette taxes are also branded as regressive – they impact lower-income people, which runs counter to the theory of DirigoChoice, which wants to bring uninsured Mainers into the insurance market. This shouldn’t be done on the backs of lower-income people.

Most of all, it just doesn’t make sense to fund health care programs on a behavior that other health care programs try to eradicate. If one succeeds, the other loses.

The only way to perch DirigoChoice on solid footing, under this tax proposal, is for more Mainers to smoke. Then there might be enough funding to support DirigoChoice (but then again, maybe not enough to cover the subsequent rise in smoking-related illnesses.)

A task force assigned to study DirigoChoice funding beyond its current mechanism – the controversial “savings offset payment” – recommended snack and tobacco taxes as the only option. They’re bad options, and lawmakers should reject the notion out-of-hand.

The other funding for DirigoChoice under consideration – a 1.8 percent surcharge on hospital bills – is more defendable. It’s more logical to balance a health insurance program based on the costs of receiving health care.

Basing it on regressive, unreliable tobacco taxes, on the other hand, is not.