By pushing a 75% wholesale tax on nicotine pouches, New York State Budget Director Blake Washington says, Gov. Kathy Hochul is trying to address "a public health concern." That rationale is absurd on its face, since this tax would sharply raise the cost of a nicotine product that is far less hazardous than cigarettes, perversely discouraging smokers from making a switch that could save their lives.
Hochul, who seems determined to portray a money grab as a benevolent intervention, is either oblivious or indifferent to the health consequences of taxing nicotine patches at the same rate as cigarettes. "We see it as a distinction without a difference," Washington told reporters in January.
That position ignores the huge difference between inhaling tobacco smoke, which contains myriad toxins and carcinogens, and orally absorbing nicotine from a pouch placed between the lip and gums. Hochul's framing also contradicts what the Food and Drug Administration said four days before the end of the Biden administration, when it authorized the marketing of Zyn nicotine pouches in two doses and 10 flavors.
That decision was based on the FDA's determination that "the new products offer greater benefits to population health than risks." The data, said Matthew Farrelly, director of the Office of Science at the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, "show that these nicotine pouch products meet that bar by benefiting adults who use cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco products and completely switch to these products."
Nicotine pouches contain "substantially lower amounts of harmful constituents than cigarettes," the FDA noted. They therefore offer "a lower-risk alternative for adults who smoke cigarettes."
How much lower? To give you a sense of the difference, the Royal College of Physicians estimates that "the hazard to health" from e-cigarettes, which likewise do not contain tobacco or burn anything but do require inhalation, "is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."
Recommended
Nicotine pouches "contain far, far fewer harmful constituents compared to traditional tobacco products," notes Mary Hrywna, a tobacco control specialist at the Rutgers School of Public Health. The FDA's Zyn decision implicitly acknowledged that nicotine pouches are "much safer than cigarettes," says Ray Niaura, a professor at New York University's School of Global Public Health.
Does that sound like "a distinction without a difference"? Washington conceded that cigarettes pose a much more serious cancer risk than nicotine pouches do but added that "there's an addictive property to both," which is "really the thrust behind" the proposed tax.
Seriously? The central problem with cigarettes is not their addictiveness, which would be of much less moment if smokers did not face a substantial danger of premature death. Other things being equal, a nicotine habit that promises to dramatically reduce that hazard surely counts as a big improvement.
The Hochul administration also argues that a hefty tax will deter teenagers from using nicotine pouches. But according to the National Youth Tobacco Survey, just 1.6% of middle and high school students reported past-month use of nicotine pouches last year, down from 1.8% in 2024.
Since selling nicotine pouches to anyone younger than 21 is already illegal, enforcing that rule seems like a more sensible way to prevent underage consumption than imposing a new financial burden on adults. That is especially true given the evidence that nicotine pouches are an appealing alternative for adults who smoke.
A 2025 study, for instance, found that "daily nicotine pouch use is most prevalent among adults who recently quit using another tobacco product." A study considered by the FDA found that a quarter of people who initially used Zyn in combination with cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, or both had switched entirely to the nicotine pouches within 10 weeks.
A randomized trial reported in 2024 found that nicotine pouches were especially effective at reducing cigarette consumption among low-income smokers, who would be disproportionately affected by Hochul's tax. These findings suggest that levy would undermine public health in the name of protecting it.
Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, is the author of Beyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives (Prometheus Books). Follow him on X: @jacobsullum.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member