One of the most frequently heard arguments for raising Missouri's cigarette tax is that pushing the price of a pack significantly higher will make teens less likely to start smoking.

That is just common sense.

Or is it?

The biennial Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted through the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the number of Missouri youngsters smoking has been cut in half over the last decade, and only about 21 percent of high-school students responding in 2005 said they had smoked a cigarette within the past month. That is well below the national average.

What's going on here? Missouri spends very little on its anti-tobacco budget, so whatever the state is doing is either working well or young people are waking up to the long-term risks of lighting up and puffing away until they develop a chronic cough, suffer heart problems or develop lung cancer.

A campaign to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would push the Missouri tax up by 80 cents a pack and $8 a carton recently has been rejected by the secretary of state's office as having an insufficient number of signatures. Proponents have asked the courts to overturn that verdict.

But an argument might be made that the tobacco tax plan may not be necessary after all to persuade kids to quit smoking or to not start. Of course, a prime objective of increasing tobacco taxes is to reduce the likelihood that youngsters will smoke. We are delighted a large majority of our youths understand the expensive, life-endangering risks associated with smoking and are showing the maturity to not get involved.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the decline reflects a national trend. Higher prices for cigarettes may have turned off youngsters in some states, which is good, but as far as Missouri is concerned, the cost of a pack of cigarettes doesn't seem to have been much of a factor.

In short, Missouri youngsters apparently aren't smoking because they don't want to smoke.

The Missouri tobacco tax plan has some Christmas tree ornaments designed to provide something for just about everyone, from setting aside $102 million for partial restoration of Medicaid cuts to providing money for improving physician-disbursement rates. The tax could raise as much as $499 million annually, so there would be plenty left for snuffing out smoking through education or whatever other means seems appropriate.

We aren't pro-smoking. Indeed, we find it generally to be a disgusting, smelly habit.

But taxing tobacco products out of existence is a backdoor approach to solving a significant health problem. What is needed are not layers of taxes, but rather an outright ban that underscores the gravity of the government's concern.

Of course, critics will argue, with some accuracy, that prohibition would only create burgeoning black markets for illegal cigarettes and cigars. But then, might not such markets begin appearing if taxes get too high?