Both statements are true. Taxing as a method of altering spending patterns is very well understood by economists. In the case of cigarettes, it seem sot have been quite effective since smoking rates in the Us have fallen to historic lows.

I'd suggest that education campaigns and the natural human desire to not get lung cancer may have also played a part.

Surely, though it's worth noting that education campaigns and research are financed with both tax dollars and cigarette company settlement money (from a large lawsuit many years back).