Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by The Collegian or its editorial board.

Earlier this month, Coloradans voted on Proposition EE, which proposed a tax increase on nicotine products, including e-cigarettes. The proposition passed with 67.56% majority voting to enact the tax.

According to CPR News, funds from the nicotine tax are planned to be allocated to “K-12 education, rural schools, tobacco programs and a smaller portion to general state spending.” With every new proposition, however, there is discourse regarding ethical implications. While a tax on nicotine products can seem like a simple decision following straightforward logic, there are deeper implications on those who this law majorly affects.

In addition to the proposition indirectly targeting people with a lower socioeconomic status, many individuals who are using nicotine products, particularly e-cigarettes, are minors.”

The crux of the drawbacks of Proposition EE is the unfortunate truth that smoking disproportionately affects those of a lower socioeconomic status. This indicates that the majority of the individuals who will be paying the tax on nicotine products are people in vulnerable economic positions.

This is especially relevant to the college-aged community, which often faces financial challenges. Many college-aged students face debt, and food and housing insecurity, among other things. Considering that there has been a dramatic increase in vaping among college students in recent years, there are significant implications of this proposition on students of that age.

People in lower-income brackets are specifically targeted by tobacco industries. ClearWay Minnesota reports that methods of unethical demographic targeting include “price discounts, direct-mail marketing and in-store promotions.”

In addition to the proposition indirectly targeting people with a lower socioeconomic status, many individuals who are using nicotine products, particularly e-cigarettes, are minors. In the United States, e-cigarette use among youth has increased significantly since 2011, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

My colleague Mason Holitza makes the argument that the goal of the proposition is to discourage smoking. The simple notion here is that the tax acts as a punishment for what many see as a personal decision. However, this argument lacks the nuance of recognizing that the decision to use nicotine products is not entirely made out of free will for many individuals due to the highly addictive nature of nicotine, particularly on developing brains. 

Perhaps if the funding raised from the sale of nicotine products was going entirely to smoking prevention programs, it would be easier for this proposition to be less divisive.”

There has been a great amount of discourse on whether or not popular e-cigarette companies have employed specific marketing strategies to entice young consumers. Recently, Juul Labs took their fruity flavors off the market after accusations of developing flavors that would appeal to younger ages. 

Individuals who start using multiple nicotine products at a young age are more likely to develop an addiction to the substance. If we conclude that minors do not have a full capacity for decision making, then they should also not be responsible for paying a tax as punishment for a decision that was made with a developing brain that was further encouraged by corporations.

Another piece of this discussion lies in what the funding is going toward as well. What message does it send that funds from people’s personal addiction are being put toward K-12 education? One could argue that the message this sends is that we do not actually prioritize the infrastructure of our public schools if we must pull these funds from adverse decisions people are making in their personal lives, and we must rely on “sin taxes.”

Perhaps if the funding raised from the sale of nicotine products was going entirely to smoking prevention programs, it would be easier for this proposition to be less divisive. However, because the funding is going toward public education, not only does this law target minors already in a lower socioeconomic position, but it also sends a greater message that states are not prioritizing funding towards K-12 education. 

No matter where an individual stands, it’s important to keep in mind that we must recognize that nicotine addictions are of growing concern, and we must be cognizant of the implications of a tax given the circumstances.

Cat Blouch can be reached at letters@collegian.com or on Twitter @BlouchCat.