would you it dress the argument that if this says he doesn't read exactly the way you describe it the statute just says as you indicated that notwithstanding the foregoing the section does not grant any home rule imposed tax such as the  was any municipality taxing other term tobacco products you know and then and then does it make any difference examine the answer is no it doesn't because the idea was legislature was going to be had all cigarettes they were debating putting it in its pressure in there miles adding tobacco products to this law because the day before the authorize they were concerned the day before right that if they allowed the city to three could continue to do so while other homo units were preempted entering into that category of taxation and finally to the extent that section six a two is that all ambiguous the principle that constitutional taxing power in that category and in that category they could choose to tax cigarettes or tobacco products or bought if they so chose to respond to the question about work here when we confirmation that the city's tax i was not preemptive they weren't such attacks do not refer separately to a tax and cigarettes and a tax on tobacco products rather it refers back to the currency tax in this language is just this is intended as a singular tax category it could of course a been written to be a tax on cigarettes or a tax on tobacco products and then we have to antecedents and such attacks might refer constitution and it does not require statutory authority she attacks but is in fact don't cite a single case that holds that section six a two is a tax actually that would be strictly construed against a municipality that  found no such case i'm pretty confident in saying there is no such case to the contrary the case law holds that homer part is preserved unless specifically and clearly preempted language when it created a limitation class and it deliberately did so so as to prevent those homo units that had not imposed tax in that general category on cigarettes tobacco products are bought from doing so in the future city is two does support our new minutes well it shows that the general assembly intended to allow those who wrote units that had a tax in the category of cigarettes and tobacco products to continue imposing such a tax transcripts from those debates clearly isn't exempting cook county resident evanston in the city of chicago this discussion show us that whether they like the bill or not legislators understood chicago and other home rule units that impose a cigarette tax  was the legislature concerned about many issues revenues and if that's the case how does that square with your with your your honor they were concerned diminishing sought to provide economic relief it's tobacco companies and to safeguard its activity on the other hand this man that was unlikely to pass without the support of people of the legislators from chicago and the other entities that had existing cigarette existing taxes in that category it would not pass and so it was carried out necessary support in and provided that the preemption would not apply to those homo units that had imposed tax and cigarettes and tobacco tobacco products so well the thing about the legislative history that was mentioned is that the legislators did discuss the says it in terms of a single category of the tax that makes sense that legislators  apparently as similar products and probably understood that to effectively regulate tobacco price dealing with it as a category not as a separate taxes but there certainly was no mention of the idea that cigarettes and tobacco products would be treated separately for purposes of prison preemption if the general assembly intended to eliminate all future taxes on tobacco products not only what we expected would have just taken the  twenty one years prior by a different general assembly the legislative intent that controls that of the legislature that passed the act and so they really these debates really have no bearing and there is no authority that suggests th agency's construction of a term was reasonable and and looked at debates that analyzed construction or looked at the failure of a legislative to act in response to an agency's construction of a statute here there is no administrative body or is not relevant but even if it were those returns to clarify the existing law the city of course wanted to avoid a lawsuit knowing that if it passed the tax is likely to be sued and that's these bills reaching florida bay it demonstrates that that was the purpose in two thousand and fourteen the bill's sponsor in the senate senator task introduced the bill and explained that  cigarette taxes have the authority to texas products just make sure that no one can raise the argument that they don't have the authority to do that so it provides clarification and the senate did pass that bill that's the only example of of any debate that we have on also be understood as an attempt to avoid potential litigation by providing greater clarity