Maine’s newly doubled cigarette tax has predictably brought stories of smokers, especially in southern Maine, crossing the border into New Hampshire to buy cheaper smokes. The cross-border shopping was expected by anyone paying attention and even factored into revenue projections based on the added $1 per pack.

The next several months will show whether lawmakers got the new tax level right earlier this year. If not, even the strongest opponents of smoking should be willing to reconsider the tax in January.

One news story noted “a definite increase in business” in Portsmouth, N.H., since Sept. 19, the day the new tax went into effect. Meanwhile, a store manager in Kittery said, “We’ve seen a substantial decrease in cigarette sales.”

If the tax worked as planned, the Kittery store should have seen a decrease in smokers because the cost outweighed smokers’ nicotine cravings. If, instead, some are going to New Hampshire and buying in bulk at a lower price, Maine officials should want to know how many Mainers are actually doing this and how likely they are to continue making the drive.

But they shouldn’t lose track of the underlying reason for the increase, which was to raise the cost of smoking high enough to persuade more people to quit. If that is happening even as some smokers are going to New Hampshire, leaving the tax in place remains a sound idea.

A second reason for the tax was to raise money to help pay for the medical costs of smokers who receive Medicaid, though even the higher tax doesn’t come close to covering those costs. Smokers would have to flood the Granite State (or shop heavily online) before Maine saw an absolute loss of revenue based on the increased tax.

It’s no secret the cigarette tax is abused by lawmakers, who see it as a handy way to close budget deficits. They can do this because even the most ardent smoker knows the habit is not healthy and has seen smoking decline especially among price-sensitive young people as the tax has gone up. The long-term savings of a lowered smoking rate in Maine, even when achieved for budgetary rather than health reasons, would more than offset the loss of a fraction of smokers crossing the border for a bargain.

The key for policy-makers is not to leap to conclusions based on these recent stories, but to wait for several months of numbers to see what the situation actually looks like. They may need to adjust the tax at some point; so far, all the stories have shown for those driving to New Hampshire is that high gas prices are no match for high cigarette taxes. Perhaps they’d even walk a mile for a Camel.