Committee advances bill to raise vapor-product tax after prolonged debate on youth vaping, enforcement and market impacts

The House Ways and Means Committee voted 9–6 April 22 to report House Bill 5 17 with amendments, advancing legislation that would change the tax on vapor products and e‑cigarettes from a per‑milliliter excise to a percentage of wholesale invoice price and raise the overall tax burden on those products.

Representative Tanner Brass, the bill sponsor, framed the measure as a public‑health effort to reduce youth vaping and to create parity across tobacco products. "It actually changes the taxation, from 15%, 15 cent per milliliter to 33%, for e cigarettes and vaping," Brass told the committee.

What the bill would change

Under the version debated in committee, the current excise — levied by volume at the wholesale level — would be replaced by an ad valorem tax equal to a percentage of the invoice price (the bill’s working figure in committee was 33%). Sponsors said the change is intended to align taxation of vapor products with other taxed tobacco products and to correct what lawmakers described as years of under‑taxation for newer, disposable and flavored devices.

Why it mattered to witnesses

Public‑health groups told the committee higher taxes would lower youth initiation and reduce long‑term health costs. Eric Weinsaddle of the American Lung Association told members higher prices are effective: "For every 10% increase in price, consumption will decrease 13% to 22% among youth," he said, urging parity with other tobacco products.

Law‑enforcement and regulatory officials described enforcement challenges. Ernest Leger of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control said compliance checks and permit enforcement exist but that large numbers of retail points of sale and internet imports complicate efforts: "We inspect every location that has an alcohol permit... We cite where appropriate and suspend and revoke permits where there is noncompliance. Is that effort [sufficient]? Absolutely not. We could use, as many resources as we can." Leger supported the bill as an additional deterrent.

Retailers and wholesalers opposed the measure or sought changes, saying a higher ad‑valorem tax would sharply increase retail prices and push some consumers to buy cross‑border or online. Jack Casanova of the Louisiana Association of Wholesalers gave examples from wholesale pricing, saying a top selling disposable product could move from roughly $5.40 per carton in tax to more than $31 per carton under the proposed rate. Several retail witnesses said the most widely observed youth devices are often illegal imports that do not pass through legal wholesale channels.

Committee amendments and votes

Vice Chair Brass offered an amendment (amendment set 1386) to delay the bill’s effective date to Jan. 1, 2026 and to set a filing window for dealers’ inventories; members voted to adopt that amendment. After further debate, the committee voted 9–6 to report House Bill 5 17 with the adopted amendments.

Discussion points and open questions

Members questioned whether a price increase would deter addicted users and whether raising taxes would simply shift purchases to neighboring states with lower excise rates; witnesses and sponsors pointed to research showing youth are price sensitive while also warning cross‑border purchasing is a practical concern. Several members said they would support additional targeted funding for enforcement, school‑based prevention and cessation programs.

What the committee did (and did not) decide

The committee reported the bill with amendments to the House calendar. The measure's final text, its exact ad‑valorem percentage and any dedicated spending of new revenue remain subject to change in subsequent legislative action; supporters said they would seek companion provisions or later bills to direct some funding to prevention and cessation programs.

Ending

House Bill 5 17 leaves the committee with a narrow majority that favored reporting the bill with amendments. The debate highlighted a persistent split between public‑health advocates seeking stronger price‑based deterrents and retailers and wholesalers concerned about enforcement practicality and cross‑border market effects.