S0519 amends South Carolina’s tobacco tax statute to expressly include “cigarettes for heating” in the cigarette excise tax structure. Under the bill, cigarettes for smoking remain taxed at three and one-half mills per cigarette, while cigarettes for heating are taxed at one and one-quarter mills per cigarette. The bill also retains the existing five percent tax on other tobacco products based on the manufacturer’s price.
The measure defines “cigarette” to cover rolls for smoking or heating that contain tobacco or a tobacco substitute and are wrapped in paper or another non-tobacco-leaf material, as well as certain small tobacco rolls that are likely to be sold or purchased as cigarettes based on their appearance, packaging, pricing, marketing, or labeling. The act is set to take effect on October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 12-21-620 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, changing the state’s tobacco tax provisions to specifically tax heated tobacco cigarettes at a lower per-cigarette rate than traditional smoking cigarettes. It would affect manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers of heated tobacco products by clarifying tax treatment and potentially altering pricing and compliance obligations. The bill does not change the tax on other tobacco products, but it expands statutory language to better capture products marketed as cigarettes for heating.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears largely technical and tax-administrative in nature, with no recorded committee debate or votes provided. The caption and language suggest an effort to update the tax code to account for newer heated tobacco products rather than a broad policy shift. Because there is no transcript or voting history, there is no documented public or legislative opposition in the materials provided.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the separate tax treatment for heated cigarettes versus smoking cigarettes, which could raise questions about whether heated tobacco products should be taxed differently and whether the lower rate creates a preference for alternative nicotine products. Another possible issue is the breadth of the definition of “cigarette,” which includes products based on appearance, marketing, and likelihood of consumer purchase, potentially affecting borderline products and enforcement. No specific lawmakers, committees, or stakeholder groups are identified in the provided record as taking opposing positions.