Taxing Harm Reduction: How Massachusetts’ Nicotine Bills Could Undermine Public Health

---

Key Points:

• Legislative Push: Massachusetts lawmakers are advancing three bills (H.3067, S.1945, H.3075) to tax and regulate oral and synthetic nicotine products.

• Proposed Taxes: H.3067/S.1945 would create a new “oral nicotine product” category taxed at $2.00 per ounce; H.3075 would instead tax pouches as smokeless tobacco at 210 percent of wholesale price.

• Intent vs. Impact: Though framed as youth protection and parity, the bills risk discouraging adult smokers from switching to safer nicotine alternatives.

• Policy Context: Massachusetts already bans flavored tobacco and vapes (since 2020) and taxes vapor products at 75 percent wholesale – policies linked to higher smoking rates and cross-border sales.

• Youth Data: 2023 YRBS shows record lows – only 3.4 percent of high schoolers smoke and 18.3 percent vape (down 43 percent since 2019). Youth oral nicotine pouch use is minimal (1.8 percent nationally in 2024).

• Regional Comparison: Neighboring states without bans (CT, NH, RI, VT) have similar or lower youth vaping rates and greater declines in adult smoking.

• Adult Impact: Massachusetts adult smoking fell just 11.7 percent (2020–2023), while New Hampshire dropped 25.2 percent in the same period.

• FDA Findings: In 2025, FDA authorized 20 flavored nicotine pouch products as “appropriate for the protection of public health,” citing reduced risk vs. cigarettes.

• Policy Concern: Excessive taxation on reduced-risk products could push consumers back to cigarettes and undermine harm-reduction goals.

• Better Path: Rather than taxing innovation, lawmakers should promote safer alternatives for the state’s 554,000+ adults who still smoke, while maintaining youth safeguards.

---

Massachusetts lawmakers are seeking to regulate and tax oral and synthetic nicotine products. Multiple bills (H.3067, S.1945, and H.3075) aim to regulate and provide tax parity for nicotine pouches, while also focusing on public health and youth prevention efforts. While such efforts are laudable, policymakers must refrain from adopting policies that may discourage or restrict access to alternatives to combustible cigarettes.

H.3067 and S.1945 focus on regulating oral nicotine products. Nearly identical, the legislation would create a new product category (oral nicotine product) that treats these products as distinct from tobacco and establishes a tax rate of $2.00 per ounce. Comparatively, H.3075 would expand the existing smokeless tobacco definition to include synthetic nicotine, including nicotine pouches. Under this legislation, pouches would be subject to the Commonwealth’s tax on smokeless tobacco products – 210 percent of the wholesale price. Notably, H.3075 – titled An Act relative to protecting youth by closing the synthetic nicotine loophole – focuses on youth use, while the former bills are centered on the regulatory and tax framework for nicotine pouches.

This legislation is another example of how the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is failing adults who smoke by imposing excessive taxes on safer alternatives and conflating these products with traditional tobacco.

Since 2020, the Bay State has banned the sale of flavored tobacco and vapor products, including menthol cigarettes. The state also imposes a 75 percent wholesale tax on vapor products. Such policies have led to unintended effects – including increases in smoking rates, while neighboring states have experienced rapid declines.

Moreover, legislation addressing youth tobacco and alternative nicotine product use ignores record lows in cigarette smoking, significant declines in youth vaping, and minimal use of nicotine pouches.

According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), in 2023 only 3.4 percent of Massachusetts high school students were currently smoking combustible cigarettes, defined as use on at least one occasion in the past 30 days. These are the lowest figures ever reported by the YRBS. Similarly, only 18.3 percent were currently vaping, a 43.2 percent decline from 2019 when nearly one-third (32.2 percent) were using e-cigarettes. The YRBS does not provide data on oral nicotine pouches, but according to the National Youth Tobacco Survey, in 2024 only 1.8 percent of U.S. middle and high school students were currently using oral nicotine pouches – despite an increase in sales during the same period.

It should also be noted that the flavored e-cigarette ban did not lead to significant declines in youth vaping compared to neighboring states. In 2023, 11.5 percent of Connecticut high school students, 16.7 percent of New Hampshire students, 16.5 percent of Rhode Island students, and 16.1 percent of Vermont students were currently using e-cigarettes – compared to 18.3 percent in Massachusetts.

Other states have experienced greater declines in adult smoking rates despite wide availability of flavored tobacco and vapor products. Between 2020 and 2023, smoking rates among Massachusetts adults decreased by only 11.7 percent, while among adults in New Hampshire they fell by 25.2 percent.

Oral nicotine pouches are another tobacco harm reduction tool. In January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the sale of 20 oral nicotine pouch products – available in a variety of flavors including cinnamon, citrus, and spearmint – for retail sale in the U.S. The agency found these products to be “appropriate for the protection of public health,” noting a significant reduction in risk compared to combustible cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The growth of nicotine pouch sales has coincided with rapid declines in cigarette sales.

Rather than imposing punitive taxes on products that can help the estimated 554,641 Massachusetts adults who smoked in 2023, lawmakers should explore ways to encourage their use among smokers while monitoring any potential youth use. As data suggest, youth are not overwhelmingly using these products, and given the unintended consequences of prior legislation targeting harm reduction, policymakers should avoid enacting laws that could increase combustible cigarette use.

Nothing in this analysis is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of Tobacco Harm Reduction 101.