By Matt Adams

Access to better, safer alternatives to cigarettes is once again under attack, this time in North Carolina where lawmakers are considering a new tax on nicotine pouches. Proposals such as these have become all too familiar as more and more lawmakers look at ways to restrict access to reduced harm products that adults use as alternatives to tobacco products.

We’re hopeful the General Assembly doesn’t go down the path of other state and local governments that have banned or restricted access to reduced-risk products. For starters, we know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the Tar Heel State and nationwide, and most smokers want to quit but are unable to do so. In large part, this is because the traditional methods of gums, medications and others have not worked for them.

For many, e-cigarettes and vapes serve as alternatives to cigarettes. Not only are they safer, but they have proven extremely effective in helping smokers quit. An analysis of 61 studies found that they are more effective than other methods for quitting smoking.

One study published in the journal Addiction found that increasing taxes on nicotine vaping products by $1 per milliliter resulted in a 3.7 percent increase in the rates of recent smoking for the group. It’s clear that any measure that raises the price of alternative nicotine products will deter a large subset of nicotine users from reverting to the less expensive option. Why then, would many state and local legislatures consider taxes and other restrictive measures that discourage consumers from using a safer product?

Like with any other industry, the introduction of new products creates disruption as consumer preferences change. In this case, the rise in alternative nicotine products have offered cigarette smokers different options. Roughly six percent of the U.S. population is now vaping, but this change should be welcomed as it reduces the number of smokers and improves the health and wellness of all individuals.

In that same manner, oral nicotine pouches, which can be a safer alternative to traditional tobacco products, such as snus or dip, are becoming increasingly popular. They do not emit smoke or vapor and are simply another product that delivers nicotine to users, just like the FDA-approved cessation medications included in treatment programs that are covered by most health insurance plans. It is puzzling then that North Carolina legislators are considering a measure that would discourage consumers from using this less harmful product.

The House was right to not include this provision in their budget and those in the Senate considering pushing this tax in conference must consider the impact it will have on tobacco users trying to quit.

It’s bad for public health to restrict access to reduced-risk products, and that is why elected officials in the Tar Heel State should reject this new tax on alternative nicotine products.

Matt Adams is a business leader and faith leader in Gastonia, North Carolina.