According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2024 are minimal and largely indeterminate. The bill creates a new Class B misdemeanor offense for individuals or entities that market, advertise, or sell certain e-cigarette products—specifically those manufactured in China or disguised to look like other products, such as school supplies or electronics. As a result, the state could see an increase in fine revenue from convictions under this new offense category. However, the LBB notes that it is not possible to estimate the volume of such cases or the resulting revenue with any degree of certainty.

The Office of Court Administration (OCA) similarly indicates that it cannot project the change in case volume or the associated judicial costs stemming from the enforcement of this new provision. This suggests a level of uncertainty regarding the frequency with which individuals or businesses might be charged under the law and the administrative burden it may place on the courts.

On the correctional side, it is assumed that the impact on state correctional populations or the need for additional resources would not be significant. Class B misdemeanors in Texas typically involve fines and short-term confinement, and the state does not anticipate a meaningful rise in incarceration or supervision rates due to this legislation.

Finally, the fiscal impact on local governments—who would be responsible for most enforcement, prosecution, and possible short-term detention—is also expected to be minimal. Local entities are not anticipated to face substantial new costs related to this law, and any financial burden arising from enforcement is likely to be absorbed within existing budgets.

SB 2024 aims to curb youth-targeted marketing and deceptive product design practices in the e-cigarette industry. It prohibits the sale, advertisement, or marketing of e-cigarette products that are packaged with imagery appealing to minors or that are designed to resemble other objects such as school supplies, electronics, or toys. Additionally, the bill includes a blanket ban on any e-cigarette product manufactured in China. It creates a Class B misdemeanor offense for violations.

While the bill’s intent to protect minors is commendable, it conflicts with multiple core liberty principles. Most significantly, the bill undermines personal responsibility by allowing the state to override the judgment of rational, consenting adults. In a free society, adults should be trusted to make informed decisions about the legal products they choose to consume. Rather than relying on transparency, labeling standards, or informed consumer choice, the bill substitutes state-mandated design restrictions and origin-based prohibitions, suggesting that the government—not individuals—is better suited to decide what is acceptable in the marketplace. This is antithetical to the principle that liberty and accountability go hand in hand.

The legislation also infringes on free enterprise by restricting how businesses may design and market legal products and by banning entire categories of goods based solely on country of origin, without tying such restrictions to objective safety standards. This arbitrary approach could harm legitimate businesses, limit innovation, and set a precedent for broader government control over commerce. Furthermore, it violates the principle of limited government by expanding the state’s role into aesthetic regulation and international sourcing decisions well beyond traditional consumer protection measures.

Though the fiscal impact is minimal, according to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill’s broader implications for constitutional liberties and market dynamics are significant. A more appropriate approach would focus on enforcing existing age restrictions, strengthening penalties for unlawful sales to minors, and promoting transparency through labeling and safety testing.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2024 unless amended to remove the country-of-origin ban and scale back the overreach into lawful packaging and design, restoring trust in individuals to act responsibly and preserving economic and personal freedoms.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts the ability of rational, law-abiding adults to make their own choices about legal products. By banning specific packaging and design elements—such as cartoon imagery, food likenesses, or celebrity branding—the legislation limits consumer access based not on safety or legality but on aesthetics deemed unacceptable by the state. This form of state paternalism diminishes individual autonomy by treating adults as if they cannot responsibly interpret branding or differentiate youth-appealing packaging from adult consumer products.
• Personal Responsibility: Though the bill initially appears to promote accountability by targeting youth-directed marketing, it ultimately shifts responsibility away from individuals and toward the state. Rather than enforcing transparency and letting informed adults make decisions, the bill preemptively restricts product access and design choices—even for those acting within the law. This substitution of government judgment for personal choice erodes the ethic of self-governance, implying that adults need to be protected from their own decisions. In doing so, it undermines the very foundation of a responsibility-based society.
• Free Enterprise: The bill directly intrudes upon commercial freedom. It bans e-cigarette products manufactured in China, regardless of their content or compliance with safety standards, and prohibits certain marketing styles, regardless of intent or outcome. These blanket prohibitions distort competitive markets, harm businesses that operate legally, and impose arbitrary barriers to entry. By regulating not just what can be sold but how products must look, the state inserts itself deeply into business operations, chilling innovation and threatening lawful commerce.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill doesn’t involve direct seizure or use of private property, it significantly limits how businesses may package, market, and sell the inventory they lawfully own. Retailers and distributors with existing stock that violates the new design rules or originates from China could find themselves unable to legally sell their property, effectively reducing its value. These restrictions add layers of liability and risk that constrain the full and beneficial use of private assets.
• Limited Government: Rather than focusing on enforcing age restrictions or ensuring product safety, the bill represents an expansion of state authority into design aesthetics and international sourcing decisions. It authorizes government—not consumers—to determine what images are permissible and which countries are off-limits for manufacturing. This level of micromanagement contradicts the foundational principle that government should remain restrained and only intervene where necessary to protect life, liberty, and property.