Skip to content Skip to footer

state call to actioN

Spread the word!


NEBRASKA – Stop a Vapor Tax! LB727 [ENDED]

current status




Signed by

LB 727

05.23.23 – Amended by AM1905 to include tax language from LB584 and change to a bifurcated 10% retail tax for bottled e-liquid and 5c/mL for anything containing 3ml or less.

LB 584

02.22.23 – Hearing (pulled from agenda), Revenue

01.19.23 – Referred to Revenue Cmte.

01.17.23 – Introduction

The tax language from LB 584 is now part of LB 727. An amendment by Senator Linehan would impose a bifurcated tax on e-liquid that imposes a 10% retail tax for vapor products containing more than three milliliters and a 5c/mL tax for products containing less than three milliliters.
If enacted, rather than protect young people from the temptation to vape, LB 727 will send Nebraska consumers to neighboring states, like Iowa which sits next to nearly half of Nebraska’s population.

Beyond the obvious revenue loss and exposing residents to more risk and expense of traveling to a neighboring state, extra taxes on vapor products have been shown to decrease attempts to quit smoking and actually protect sales of cigarettes.

Take action and urge Nebraska lawmakers to reject extra taxes on low-risk alternatives to smoking!

  • State that you are opposed to LB 727 and any legislation that would make safer alternatives to smoking less affordable.
  • Share your experience with switching to vapor products. If affordability compared to continuing to smoke was a motivating factor for trying vaping or other smoke-free products, be sure to include that in your comments. Conversely, if the already high initial cost of these products delayed your first purchase, highlight this instead. Be sure to include any changes in your health that you’ve experienced as a result of switching to safer nicotine or tobacco products.
  • Taxes on traditional cigarettes are intended to discourage use. But, e-cigarettes and other smoke-free tobacco products are estimated to be 98 – 99% less harmful than smoking, discouraging use is counter to the goals of reducing smoking rates.
  • Research shows that increasing taxes on smoke-free alternatives (like vaping) reduces quit attempts and quitting. Economists at the University of Georgia recently published an analysis of a proposed federal tax on vaping and concluded that “the unintended effects of ENDS taxation may considerably undercut or even outweigh any public health gains.”
  • Other governments are taking exactly the opposite approach. Public Health England (the government public health agency) explicitly endorses a policy of encouraging people who smoke to switch to e-cigarettes and vapor products.
  • Sin taxes are regressive. People who smoke and those who switch to vaping and other smoke-free alternatives are disproportionately poor and low income people. Sin taxes place unnecessary burdens on an already financially challenged group. To make matters worse, people in the low-income bracket are less likely to be insured and lack access to health care providers. The affordable resources available to these people have low success rates.
  • Sin taxes on safer nicotine products sends a confusing and inaccurate message to would-be adopters that combustible and smoke-free products present similar risks. The result of this message is that more people, those who otherwise would have switched to a smoke-free product, will be encouraged to continue smoking.

Check back for the next committee hearing

Amendment 1905 - LB 727

Read amendment text

Take Action Now!

We strongly encourage our members to customize the email below and personalize the message. Just click in the text box to make changes!