Taxation has long been regarded as one of the most effective tools by traditional tobacco control groups for controlling tobacco consumption. Tax on tobacco products is intended to serve two main purposes: to decrease demand by increasing prices, making these products less affordable and less appealing, and to generate government revenue. Critics, however, suggest that tax is a blunt instrument, contributing to the economic inequalities faced by people who smoke and driving illicit markets.
This Briefing Paper examines the current global situation regarding the taxation of safer nicotine products (SNP) and how this relates to product accessibility, before offering evidence-based policy recommendations for optimal taxation strategies in support of harm reduction goals and public health. Our primary focus is on nicotine vapes and heated tobacco products (HTP) as these are the two dominant SNP categories with the most extensive data available. However, conclusions drawn here may apply to other SNP as well.
Our analysis centres on excise taxes, which differ from general levies like income tax or value-added tax (VAT). Unlike these broad-based taxes, excise taxes target specific products or activities, making them a critical area of interest in SNP taxation policy. A more detailed description of excise taxes can be found in our latest report
Vaping
Italy was the first country to introduce an excise tax on nicotine vapes in 2014. Kazakhstan and Kenya followed in 2015, with Latvia, Romania, and Slovenia joining them in 2016. Among nations permitting the sale of vapes, at least 54 countries and 33 US jurisdictions had brought in excise taxes on these products by 2023.
What is the current state of global taxation on safer nicotine products?
National taxation approaches vary significantly. Most countries, 37 in total, tax all e-liquids, while 17 limit taxation to e-liquids containing nicotine. Specific excise taxes, which impose a flat rate on products, are the most common approach, used by 39 countries. In contrast, 11 countries apply an ad valorem system. Here, the tax is calculated as a percentage of the retail price. Four countries use a mixed system, combining elements of both specific and ad valorem taxation. Additionally, 12 countries levy excise taxes directly on vaping devices, generally applying lower tax burdens on closed systems compared to e-liquids sold separately.
Excise tax burdens, defined as the share of the retail price attributable to excise taxes, show significant variation across the globe for vapes. Belarus led with an exceptionally high tax burden of 88%, followed by Portugal at 85%, Norway at 78%, and Kazakhstan at 77%. (Kazakhstan banned the sale of nicotine vaping products in 2024). At the other end of the spectrum, countries such as Costa Rica and Paraguay impose much lower burdens, at just 4% each, while Kenya levies a mere 3% and Croatia effectively imposes no excise tax at all. Croatia’s case is particularly unusual, as its tax code stipulates an excise duty on e-liquids, but the rate is currently set at EUR 0 per millilitre.
Several European countries, including the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Spain, France, the Czech Republic, Malta, Ireland and the United Kingdom, had not levied excise taxes on vaping products as of 2023, effectively maintaining a zero percent rate. However, more and more countries are implementing or planning to introduce excise duties on these products. For example, starting in January 2024, Belgium introduced an excise tax of €0.15 per ml on e-liquids. Spain followed in January 2025 by introducing a tax of €0.20 per ml for e-liquids containing more than 15 mg of nicotine and €0.15 per ml for those with 15 mg or less, including nicotine-free liquids. Similarly, both Ireland and the United Kingdom have announced plans to impose taxes on vaping products starting in 2025 and 2026, respectively.
