For a momentary delight, a cigarette has serious long-term effects on smokers, those around them, and the public.

(And the smell is terrible, even for some smokers.)

Tobacco companies – through their interminable silence on smoking’s health effects – have earned a reputation roughly equal to Beelzebub’s. The public has little sympathy for them, and don’t mind heavy taxes on their product.

And there are many altruistic reasons for increasing tobacco taxes. Eradicating smoking is a public health issue, and increasing taxes on tobacco is strong incentive for quitting.

So tobacco is an easy mark, and tobacco taxes are much better than “predictable,” they are downright lucrative.

But tobacco taxes are regressive; their impact is greater on people with lower incomes.

Still, as a sales deterrent, increasing taxes works. When states raise taxes, fewer cigarettes are sold there.

Like Iowa, for example. In March 2006, Hawkeye State lawmakers increased cigarette taxes by $1-per-pack, and saw cigarette sales fall by 36 percent. With the tax hike, though, collections rose from $91 million to $219 million.

The same should occur in Maine. Many states are turning to this revenue to unclog tough policy discussions, especially regarding health insurance.

Maine lawmakers may increase tobacco taxes to partially fund DirigoChoice, the state’s health insurance program. The proposal would increase the per-pack price on cigarettes from $2 to $2.50, and the tax on the wholesale price of certain loose leaf tobaccos.

The higher tax is supported to spur public health improvement by giving smokers an incentive to quit. It would also provide steady revenue, which, given Maine’s narrower-than-most sales tax base, is a luxury in a down economy.

It would also generate a passel of short-term money. Iowa foreshadows that even the steepest decline in cigarette sales will still result in a fiscal windfall. But what happens when this windfall fades?

More than predictable, Dirigo needs reliable funding. There’s little sense in balancing Dirigo on revenue that’s predicted to evaporate. As smokers quit, or stop buying tobacco in Maine, Dirigo’s funding grows unstable.

The public health gains and predictability enshroud tobacco tax increases for what they are: windfalls.

And windfalls are dangerous when used to support expensive, important programs. As tax revenue from tobacco declines, Dirigo’s funding needs should increase. Nothing about modern health care, after all, is getting cheaper.

Using increased tobacco taxes to fund Dirigo, even partially, would prop the program for the short-term, while leaving long-term concerns about its viability unanswered.

Tobacco taxes might be predictable, but they are unreliable.