[wind_magic]

There is a not so well hidden strategy involved here-

It is true that by taxing the crap out of cigarettes it raised the price to the point that many people stopped smoking, it really has worked as a government policy. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it effective.

It is also true that by raising the price on gasoline less of it will be used, and that absolutely IS the plan, make no mistake about it! Even Craigimass alludes to it above when he says that lowering the price to 0.69$us/gallon increased gasoline consumption, the obvious intended implication is that raising it will do exactly the opposite. Raising prices WILL decrease gasoline usage.

But .. to what end ?

Lowering incidence of cancer is a good thing, even if I personally don't like the method, at least it does yield a real tangible benefit. Fewer people with cancer = more people, and more people = GOOD, because more people invent more things, do more work, have more ideas, we all benefit from more people (this is why I think Republicans are wrong on health care). Despite what some may think, we really haven't gotten any smarter over the past 1,000,000 years, smarts isn't why we have cell phones now, the reason we have cell phones is because a couple billion regular people are much more capable than a couple million.

But lowering the amount of gasoline and diesel usage does ... what, exactly ? What is the goal ? Fine, you lower gasoline usage, and that lowers the planets temperature by 2 degrees .. and ... ??????

Don't forget we USE gasoline and diesel for something, we aren't all just out there joy riding in convertibles. That's how food gets produced, with diesel powered tractors, that's how food ends up on grocery store shelves, that's how the next Bill Gates gets to his friends garage to build the next whatever, and how the space shuttle gets into orbit. Lowering the availability of cigarettes helps the world, lowering the availability of gasoline causes harm, we are less capable, we do less, we are less without gasoline.

So the argument then comes down to which is the greater evil - 1) having the planet warm up by 5 degrees and raise sea level 10 feet, and there are PLENTY OF PEOPLE who say that won't even happen, or 2) causing an absolutely known result of decreasing economic activity, innovation, and everything else that comes with artificially restricting the supply of something that is vital to U.S. commerce. YOU WILL cause harm by restricting the amount of gasoline that people can use, your only argument is and can be that the harm caused won't be nearly as bad as the harm we might be causing to the environment.

And here is the key to all this - since you WILL cause harm with the policy of artificially raising the price of gasoline, it becomes YOUR responsibility to prove to everyone beyond any reasonable doubt that your policy causes less harm to people than what would happen to them if they didn't do it. Not the other way around. And no B.S. scare tactics, no tricks, no secret little deals that have your intended consequences as a result ... if your policy is a sound policy, prove it, make us want to walk down that road - we're all sensible people, we aren't stupid, we'll walk down the road if we're convinced it is the right way to go.