According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1314 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The bill modifies the definition of “e-cigarette product” to include any substance intended for use in an e-cigarette, even if it contains no nicotine. This expanded definition extends the applicability of the existing Class B misdemeanor offense for marketing, selling, or advertising certain prohibited e-cigarette products—particularly those packaged to appeal to minors—to include non-nicotine products.

While the legislative change could technically increase the number of prosecutable offenses, the budgetary analysis assumes that any such increase would be minimal and would not significantly affect state correctional populations or require substantial additional state resources. Therefore, the expansion of criminal liability is not expected to generate notable costs for the criminal justice system or state agencies involved in enforcement.

For local governments, the bill may entail some increased responsibilities related to enforcement and prosecution. However, the analysis also concludes that any related fiscal impact at the local level—whether in terms of law enforcement workload, court proceedings, or short-term confinement—would be insignificant.

In summary, while S.B. 1314 introduces broader regulatory authority over e-cigarette products, no measurable costs or savings to the state or local governments are anticipated as a result of its enactment.

SB 1314 seeks to amend the Texas Health and Safety Code to broaden the definition of "e-cigarette product" to include any substance intended for use in an e-cigarette, regardless of nicotine content. The intent behind this change, as outlined in the bill analysis, is to close a perceived loophole in state law that allows nicotine-free vape products to escape regulation aimed at preventing marketing practices that target minors. The bill is a follow-up to HB 4758 from the previous session, which restricted packaging that appeals to youth but was limited to nicotine-containing products.

While the bill is well-intentioned in its public health aims—particularly in reducing youth exposure to harmful substances—the approach it takes introduces broad regulatory authority over a wider array of consumer products, including those marketed to and used by adults. The change effectively criminalizes the marketing or sale of any vape product with certain packaging features, even if it contains no nicotine, thereby extending regulatory and prosecutorial reach into products that may pose lower health risks or serve as harm-reduction tools for adults. This could have chilling effects on free enterprise, personal liberty, and innovation in the vaping industry.

Additionally, the fiscal analysis indicates that the bill would not result in significant costs to state or local governments, which limits concerns about resource strain. However, the policy trade-off between expanding criminal penalties and preserving personal and economic freedoms weighs heavily in the negative. The proposal conflicts with the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free enterprise, and limited government—core benchmarks of this analysis.

In balancing the intent to protect minors with the overbroad nature of the policy solution, Texas Policy Research still recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 1314. The issue of youth vaping can be more appropriately addressed through targeted education, parental involvement, and enforcement of existing age restrictions without resorting to expansive regulation that affects all users and retailers indiscriminately.

• Individual Liberty: This principle holds that individuals should have the freedom to make personal decisions without undue interference from the government. The bill redefines “e-cigarette products” to include any substance used in an e-cigarette, regardless of nicotine content. This means that adults who choose to use nicotine-free vape products for personal or health-related reasons (such as smoking cessation) will now find those products subject to the same regulations as nicotine products. By criminalizing the marketing or sale of such products in specific packaging—even if they contain no addictive substance—the state restricts adult access and autonomy over personal choices, infringing upon individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill presumes that government regulation is the preferred mechanism for deterring youth vaping, rather than fostering an environment in which adults and parents exercise responsibility. The expansion of state oversight into the behavior of adults who choose to use or sell legal, non-nicotine substances dilutes the principle that individuals, not the government, are ultimately responsible for managing risk and making informed health decisions. It also limits opportunities for businesses and families to take proactive, non-coercive roles in addressing youth behavior.
• Free Enterprise: The bill imposes a legal constraint on the packaging and sale of an entire class of products—those intended for use in e-cigarettes—based solely on form, not content. This broadens regulatory reach to a range of substances that may not pose comparable risks to nicotine-containing products. For businesses operating in good faith and targeting adult consumers with non-nicotine offerings, the bill imposes new legal risks and may disincentivize innovation, product development, and legitimate commerce. Small businesses and specialty vape retailers are particularly vulnerable to this expanded regulation.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly impact property ownership or land use. However, it could indirectly restrict how private businesses utilize their inventory and display or market legal products on their premises. These implications may become more severe if enforcement is aggressive or ambiguous. Still, since it stops short of regulating possession or use in private spaces, the direct infringement on private property rights is limited.
• Limited Government: By extending the scope of state regulation to include non-nicotine substances, the bill increases government control over a wider array of consumer products and introduces new grounds for criminal penalties. It represents a shift toward broader regulatory and punitive authority without clearly defined limits or thresholds based on risk or harm. While protecting minors is a valid state interest, the method chosen expands state power in a way that is not narrowly tailored, violating the principle that government should be constrained to core, essential functions.