A version of the following public comment was submitted to the Washington House Finance Committee on March 4, 2026.
I appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns about Senate Bill (SB) 6129, which would restructure Washington’s nicotine and tobacco tax code in ways that are likely to produce outcomes opposite to the bill’s stated public health goals. Specifically, the bill would effectively tax safer nicotine alternatives such as nicotine pouches, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco products at similar rates to combustible cigarettes, undermining the financial incentives that encourage Washington’s more than 500,000 smokers to switch to safer alternatives.
The goal of protecting youth has largely been achieved
A central purpose of this bill is to discourage youth nicotine use. We applaud this ambition, and Reason Foundation shares it without reservation. But it is essential that this committee examine whether the proposed remedy is proportionate to the current problem, because the data suggest that youth tobacco use has already been dramatically curtailed.
Youth tobacco use is at a 25-year low. E-cigarette use among teenagers has fallen 70 percent since 2019. When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized ZYN nicotine pouches for sale in 2025 as “appropriate for the protection of public health,” it specifically weighed the risk of underage use. After an extensive scientific review, the FDA determined the product was not sufficiently appealing to drive widespread uptake among minors. Fewer than three percent of high school seniors report current nicotine pouch use in the most recent National Youth Tobacco Survey.
These figures should give the committee significant pause before imposing a 100 percent effective tax rate on products that the federal government’s own scientific review has determined are helping adult smokers quit and are not driving youth uptake. The youth use of nicotine that SB 6129 is designed to deter has already largely been addressed.
Taxing products with unequal risks equally is not equitable
The sponsor has described the bill’s approach as taxing nicotine products “equitably.” This framing reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of sound tax policy as it applies to products of differing health risk.
The FDA recognizes a “continuum of risk” among nicotine products, with combustible cigarettes being the most dangerous and alternatives such as e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, and heated tobacco being far less so. Around half of lifelong smokers die of a smoking-related disease. No comparable mortality risk exists for nicotine pouches or e-cigarettes.
SB 6129 imposes a 90 percent base tax on all alternative nicotine products and an additional 10 percent surcharge on flavored products. Because approximately 80 percent of non-cigarette nicotine products on the market are flavored, the effective tax rate on the vast majority of nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes is 100 percent of the wholesale price. Meanwhile, the cigarette tax rises to $5.00 per pack. In concrete terms, a typical can of nicotine pouches and a packet of cigarettes would both cost around $15. SB 6129 treats the most dangerous consumer product on the market and one of the safest nicotine delivery systems as equivalents. That equivalence does not exist in science, and it should not exist in the tax code.
Substitution effects
We know with a high degree of confidence what happens when safer nicotine alternatives become significantly more expensive relative to cigarettes. A majority of smokers do not quit. A substantial portion of them stay on cigarettes or return to them.
An analysis of Minnesota’s 95 percent wholesale tax on e-cigarettes—a tax structurally similar to what this bill proposes—found there were 32,400 additional smokers in Minnesota than there would have been without the tax. A separate peer-reviewed study found that for every e-cigarette pod eliminated from the market by a tax increase, consumers purchased nearly two additional packs of cigarettes.
The pattern holds across populations. Research focusing on young adults found that higher e-cigarette taxes were associated with reduced vaping but were similarly associated with increases in smoking. Studies of youth aged 18 and younger reached the same conclusion, with the authors finding that “the unintended effects of taxation may considerably undercut or even outweigh any public health gains.” Washington should weigh those findings carefully before advancing this legislation.
Smoking is disproportionately concentrated among low-income households. For smokers who are weighing whether to switch to a safer and cheaper product, narrowing the price differential between cigarettes and alternatives is not a neutral act. It is a policy decision that tilts the ledger back toward the product with the largest health risks.
These substitution effects are not surprising. Because safer nicotine products are substitutes for cigarettes, policies that make them more expensive relative to cigarettes predictably drive consumers back to the more dangerous product. Risk-proportionate taxation is essential to ensuring that the tax system supports rather than undermines public health. Taxing lower-risk products at the same rate as cigarettes sends a perverse signal to consumers that the products are equally dangerous.
The principle of risk-proportionate taxation is straightforward: Taxes on safer nicotine products should always be substantially lower than those on cigarettes, if they are taxed at all.
The wider the tax gap between cigarettes and safer alternatives, the stronger the incentive for smokers to switch, improving their short- and long-term health.
Conversely, taxing safer alternatives at rates comparable to cigarettes removes this economic incentive and disproportionately burdens the populations most in need of affordable harm-reduction options. High taxes on safer nicotine products represent one of the most regressive forms of taxation, penalizing consumers for making a choice that improves their health and reduces the burden on the healthcare system.
Conclusion
More than 8,000 Washingtonians die each year from smoking-related diseases. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in Washington. The tax code is one of the most powerful tools available to change consumer behavior. SB 6129 moves in the wrong direction.
By taxing products with profoundly different risk profiles at effectively equivalent rates, the bill further reduces the financial incentive for smokers to switch, replicating the policy failures documented in other states.
We urge the committee to pause consideration of this bill and instead explore a risk-proportionate tax structure that widens the price gap between cigarettes and safer alternatives.