Tax boost on safer nicotine options will harm Iowans

Iowa lawmakers continue to advance Senate File 638, a proposal to raise taxes on e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches — products many Iowans use as safer alternatives to cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

While proponents may frame this bill as a health measure or a revenue generator, the reality is that it would punish people who are actively trying to move away from more harmful habits. This policy would create new barriers to better health, harming Iowans in the process.

Safer alternatives to smoking, such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, provide a path to reduce exposure to harmful toxins. These alternatives are supported by global health authorities, including the Royal College of Physicians and Public Health England, which have recognized their potential to help people move away from more dangerous products. SF 638, however, treats all nicotine products the same, ignoring the fact that some options are significantly less harmful.

Raising taxes on safer alternatives will likely lead to a predictable outcome: People will return to more harmful products like cigarettes and chewing tobacco. Research shows that when taxes increase on safer alternatives, many people don’t quit nicotine — they simply go back to the more dangerous products. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that higher taxes on safer alternatives led to an uptick in smoking. This is the opposite of what we want in public health.

The bill’s tax structure is the problem. It’s based on nicotine content, not the degree of harm a product poses. This means people who have switched to e-cigarettes or nicotine pouches could face significantly higher costs, even though they are using products that are far less harmful than cigarettes or chewing tobacco. By raising the price of safer alternatives, SF 638 incentivizes more harmful choices and creates a financial barrier to quitting more dangerous products.

This isn’t about promoting nicotine use. It’s about recognizing that not all nicotine products carry the same level of risk. SF 638 punishes Iowans who have chosen to use safer alternatives instead of cigarettes and chewing tobacco. Rural communities in Iowa, where smoking rates are higher than in urban areas, could be especially impacted by this bill. Rather than penalizing those who are trying to improve their health, Iowa should be supporting their choices.

Instead of passing a bill like SF 638, lawmakers should focus on policies that make safer alternatives more accessible. Encouraging people to switch from cigarettes and chewing tobacco to less harmful products should be part of a broader public health strategy. We need more effective policies, like enforcing age restrictions and supporting smoking cessation programs, to reduce tobacco-related harm.

Iowa lawmakers should reject SF 638 and focus on policies that help Iowans make healthier choices. There’s no need to create new barriers to safer alternatives when we should be encouraging them. Let’s give Iowans the tools they need to reduce harm and lead healthier lives.

Jason Semprini is a public health economist and lifelong Iowan.