Lawmakers target increased nicotine taxes, but miss the mark

There are few things that some politicians love more than to control your money and behavior—regardless of whether it is harmful—and some recently filed bills perfectly encapsulate this reality.

In what is almost certainly a well-intentioned effort to curb smoking rates, Rep. Michelle Au, D-Johns Creek, filed a couple of measures to raise taxes on nicotine products and signaled her plan to direct the windfall to address “healthcare issues” of Georgians.

For many of my readers, that may sound like a fantastic idea, but after a deeper reading, these pieces of legislation present some serious problems. They also telegraph health-related misinformation and may worsen—rather than improve—Georgians’ health.

The two bills in question are HB 83 and 84, and they focus on nicotine products, which are already taxed. In fact, tobacco users pay a sales tax and an excise tax—also known as a “sin tax,” which governments levy on products they deem harmful, ostensibly to dissuade their use. That appears to at least partially be Rep. Au’s intention.

If adopted, HB 83 would raise cigarette taxes from 37 cents to 57 cents, and HB 84 would more than double the taxes levied on e-cigarettes from 7 percent to a whopping 15 percent. Both measures contain a clause stating the plan to direct more money to healthcare issues.

That seems great prima facie, but what healthcare issues would it go toward? Tobacco-related illnesses maybe? That would make the most sense. After all, nearly 12,000 Georgians die a year from tobacco use, but the legislation doesn’t specify what health issue it would address. That leaves it open to interpretation, but just about everything has some sort of health angle.

I contend that I need multiple trips to Italy a year while flying in first class for my mental health. Would that be covered? Probably not, but I can dream. This would instead end up being little more than a legislative slush fund. Given this, it feels insincere to include this legislative intent clause in the bill, but the problems don’t end there.

Everyone knows that cigarettes are bad for your health, but don’t confuse them with e-cigarettes. They work differently, and their health impact is virtually incomparable. According to Public Health England, they are 95 percent less harmful than combustible cigarettes, and the reason is that e-cigarettes don’t employ the combustion process that cigarettes use. That process releases over 7,000 chemicals—at least 69 of which are carcinogenic.

What’s more, adults have been using e-cigarettes as cessation tools in increasing numbers. E-cigarettes are even the number one quit tool, and a 2020 study showed that they are more effective at aiding smokers to quit than traditional cessation therapies like the patch and gum. Put simply, e-cigarettes are far less dangerous than combustible cigarettes and are helping people quit smoking for good. That is cause for excitement.

Considering this, it is a bit of a head-scratcher why a lawmaker would want to hike taxes on e-cigarettes. “Sin taxes” like this serve to punish people for using e-cigarettes and disincentivize adults from trying them as a means to quit smoking. That’s bad policy. Yet, even coupled together, Au’s legislation leaves me with further questions.

That’s because she is seeking to more than double the taxes on e-cigarettes, while far more dangerous products—cigarettes—wouldn’t face as dramatic of a rate increase. That flies in the face of a grounded public health strategy because it seems to imply that combustible cigarettes are less dangerous, which they absolutely are not, and that is not the impression that officials ought to create. A more rational approach would be to endorse a risk proportionate taxation framework that is based on the dangers posed by products, rather than raising taxes on them seemingly at random.

I don’t smoke cigarettes or vape. It’s just not for me, but I understand the public health value of e-cigarettes. If the 28.9 percent of Georgians who smoke finally quit, we could greatly reduce untimely tobacco-related deaths, and there are ways to encourage them to do so. Rejecting bills like HB 83 and 84 and ensuring that our tax scheme represents actual risk is a great start.

It seems unlikely that this legislation will pass this year, but weirder things have happened under the Gold Dome. Even if they fail, lawmakers have plenty of other ways to try to control your cash and behavior.