In what must rank as the most cynical political move yet in what has been a pretty cynical season, the New Hampshire House voted Friday to reduce the state’s cigarette tax by a dime.

The goal: To take a bit of tax revenue away from the bordering states of Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts.

This follows a research study paid for by the New Hampshire Grocers Association, which should have been suspect from the start but which was eagerly inhaled by New Hampshire legislators.

The survey purported to show that by reducing the state’s cigarette tax by 10 cents per pack, New Hampshire could generate up to $13 million in additional tax revenue.

The grocers hope not only to sell more cigarettes but to draw more people into their stores to sell them other products. Like nicotine patches, perhaps.

This ploy is about as stupid and short-sighted as we can imagine.

Over the years, states have gradually increased their cigarette taxes for two reasons: To discourage youth smoking and to help pay for long-term health costs related to smoking.

Young people normally have lower incomes and are more likely than adults to forgo cigarettes as prices rise.

Research shows practically a straight-line correlation between increasing cigarette taxes and decreasing youth smoking rates.

The research also shows that if young people can get through their teenage years without trying cigarettes, they are much less likely to become addicted as adults.

But taxes have also been raised as states and local governments have come to realize the increased long-term cost of smoking.

Smokers on average have higher health-care costs throughout their lives and are more likely to die from pulmonary diseases and cancer.

The New Hampshire grocer study apparently did not examine the long-term cost of higher nicotine addiction rates to employers  — in the form of higher insurance rates and absenteeism — and to New Hampshire’s medical system.

Perhaps they hope those costs will be borne by their neighbors as well.

The Granite State is also alone in allowing the sale of fireworks. Again, cynically, its legislators want the revenue, but they do not want the risk of injury and fires.

They cynically have approved the sale of fireworks, but have prohibited the use of those fireworks within the state.

Presumably, they are perfectly happy to have the money, but would just as soon see people lose their eyesight or suffer serious burns in neighboring states.

Every state is suffering in this recession. Every legislature in the country is trying everything possible to continue services in the face of declining revenues.

It is simply shameful that one state would try to increase the availability of a dangerous and unhealthy product to meet its obligations.

There is no honor in dealing with a crisis by risking the health of your young people and taking money from your neighbors.

rrhoades@sunjournal.com

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and editorial board.