Like many other states, Florida has different taxes on a variety of products, including cigarettes.
House Bill 785 and Senate Bill 1418 are in the Florida State Legislature. These bills seek to provide regulatory clarity on this issue by redefineing the terms “tobacco” and “tobacco products” in the Florida Act and introducing the definition of “heated tobacco products.”
Advocates say this will be an important step towards codifying the kind of risk-based taxation Florida already maintains, legally setting it on stone, and reducing costs associated with traditional tobacco products to smokers and the public.
James Madison Institute (JMI) tax analyst Doug Wheeler and researcher Aaron Roigis analyzed Florida tax laws on the issue. They say it creates a price difference between more harmful products (such as traditional cigarettes) and more harmful alternative tobacco products (ATPs), including steam, nicotine pouches and heat-free products.
Wheeler argues that “Florida policymakers should keep alternative tobacco products tax-free by helping Florida policymakers use innovative smoking ban products to reduce the health risks associated with smoking traditional cigarettes.”
From heat-free burning products that do not produce smoke, to oral nicotine products that completely remove harmful chemicals from the e-nicotine delivery system (end) and tobacco, smoke-free products can help avoid the health threats pose by smoking, including cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Additionally, these alternatives reduce the external harm caused by secondhand smoke in tobacco and allow smokers to use these products without affecting the surrounding products.
“The Florida Legislature now has the opportunity to codify this into the law by passing laws that guarantee heated tobacco products or HTPS.
JMI says the FDA recognizes the difference in relative risks in tobacco products. This is because it has a lower health risk compared to traditional cigarettes, the most harmful type of tobacco product. Agents distinguish modified risk tobacco products as another category for permitting, and some states are beginning to apply significantly lower taxes on these products compared to traditional tobacco products.
Taxing tobacco and nicotine products based on the relative harm they cause to consumers and the burden they place on public health is a sensible way to reduce the negative health outcomes associated with smoking without relying on prohibition or excessive taxation. By taxing less smoking ban products than flammable cigarettes, or just as Florida doesn’t impose most of these products, raw manufacturers can provide financial incentives for smoking adults to switch to harmful products and improve their health.
The two council’s goal is to keep tax rates for smoking ban products lower than traditional cigarettes and help more adults smoke to switch to more harmful alternatives.
Wheeler and Royzis argue that maintaining tax laws in line with the benefits of tobacco harm reduction is suitable for public health. Congress should take the opportunity to solidify this tax policy and write it into the law.
