Generational Tobacco Bans Proliferating Across Massachusetts Towns
On March 8, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld a bylaw adopted by the Boston-area town of Brookline that banned the sale of tobacco products to anyone born in the 21st century. In the following weeks, several nearby townships have swiftly approved, or are considering, nearly identical legislation that would bar much of the local population born in this century from ever legally purchasing tobacco products, including handmade cigars. More neighboring communities are expected to follow suit in the coming weeks.
This movement began in 2020, when the Boston suburb of Brookline (population ~ 60,000) ed an unprecedented generational tobacco ban designed to make it illegal for anyone born after January 1, 2000 to ever purchase tobacco products—including cigarettes, cigars and vaping-related products—for their entire lifetime. The law went into effect in 2021 and, despite legal challenges that pushed the ruling all the way up to the SJC, has remained intact ever since. It was the first time any legislation of this kind had become law in the United States.
The high court’s decision less than two months ago resonated far beyond Brookline, and created an immediate ripple effect in the Greater-Boston community, opening the door for neighboring towns to introduce and ratify virtually identical laws. In just a matter of weeks, many surrounding local governments have done just that, instituting their own, so-called “Nicotine-Free Generation laws.” The governing initiatives in this case are largely led by local public health boards, who are appointed by the city council. They also have independent rule-making authority, largely uncommon across the rest of the nation.
Stoneham, Massachusetts (population ~ 20,000) was first to follow Brookline, approving a generational tobacco ban for anyone born after January 1, 2004, on March 26, less than three weeks after the SJC’s ruling. Stoneham is about a half hour north of Brookline and Boston. That ruling was quickly followed by the neighboring town of Wakefield (population ~ 27,000), which ed an essentially identical ban the following day, on March 27. Melrose (population ~ 30,000), another bordering town, soon ed the bandwagon as well. (Each of the towns held public forums centered around this proposed legislation in the fall of 2023.) All three bans are slated to go into effect in January of 2025.
The domino effect didn’t stop there. Newton (population ~ 87,000), west of Brookline, has since held a public forum and introduced similar legislation, which is being considered in the Newton Programs and Services Committee. The proposed legislation mirrors that of the three towns previously mentioned, and would make it illegal for anyone born after 2003 to purchase tobacco products. Malden (population ~ 65,000), located just south of Melrose, held public hearings the week of April 22, considering the same generational tobacco bans approved by their neighbors. Winchester (population ~ 23,000), west of Melrose, also recently held public hearings. More towns may follow suit in coming weeks. Reading (population ~ 25,000), north of Wakefield and Stoneham, will consider an identical proposal next month. Medford (population ~ 60,000), which borders Malden, Melrose and Winchester, is one of several localities rumored to be considering a generational tobacco ban proposal as well.
These towns are extremely close to one another, and to the metropolitan hub of Boston. Each locality lies within an hour drive of the Massachusetts capital, some are just on the outskirts of the city. The rapid spread of generational tobacco ban legislation has, for now, remained a somewhat localized issue, particularly in towns west and north of Boston, but the movement represents a significant chunk of the suburbs of one of our country’s more prominent cities. The better together-like approach these towns have taken mirrors what happened in 2018, when many Massachusetts towns ed legislation raising the legal age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21 before the state eventually hopped on board and did the same.
The state legislature hasn’t indicated that it intends to introduce similar generational tobacco ban legislation, and neither has the Boston City Council. However, it’s hard to say what direction the city will head in if bans continue to proliferate the surrounding towns. The uncertainty could imperil the future of some of America’s oldest cigar shops, such as Leavitt & Peirce in Cambridge, which has been serving Bostonians for well over 100 years.
“Do I think that the “powers to be” have gone too far....yes,” says Paul Macdonald Jr., second generation owner of Leavitt & Peirce. “Basically, young people are being told how to live their lives and as young adults they cannot decide for themselves.”
While Massachusetts state law does not have any form of a generational tobacco ban in place, the state does allow for local jurisdictions to exercise authority with their own forms of tobacco control, which was further ed by the SJC’s ruling. “State laws and local ordinances and bylaws can, and often do, exist side by side,” the court stated in their ruling.
Local authority legislation has become a key point of contention in many states, particularly as it pertains to tobacco control laws. In states like Virginia and South Carolina, local governments don’t have the authority to enact stricter tobacco legislation than that of the state general assembly, also known as preemption. In such states, individual towns would not be permitted to introduce generational tobacco bans like those currently seen in Massachusetts, unless the ban is voted into state law. A number of states have such local authority restrictions in place. Glynn Loope, the Cigar Association’s (PCA) director of state advocacy, hopes more states will follow along. “We are going to be far more proactive in initiating that type of legislation,” he says.
The issue remains an ongoing battle, in both directions, in states across the country. Numerous states have squashed local authority legislation in recent years, which Loope considers a victory. Ohio is the most prominent example of a state currently stuck in a preemption struggle, after 14 cities moved to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products, but now find themselves locked in a legal battle with the state. Bans on the sale of flavored tobacco currently represent the most common use of local authority nationwide in regards to tobacco control, as seen in states such as Maine, for example. Meanwhile in other states, local authority is being exercised to ban any new tobacco or vaping product shops opening within cities, such as in Sugar Land, Texas. In some cases, local authority is far more extreme. Manhattan Beach and Beverly Hills, California, have implemented the first policies nationwide that bans virtually all businesses from selling tobacco products.
“The trend has become to have local authority legislation introduced in the absence of the state legislature being able to enact similar ordinances and laws themselves. It becomes an easy out for state legislatures,” says Loope. “Our argument is that just creates a confusing patchwork of ordinances that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.” This framework can extend to taxes, marketing, permitting, etc., which impact business and the economy beyond just the act of smoking. The trend strikes similarities to the cannabis situation, in which there’s confusing legality from the state level to the federal level. Yet, in this case, it’s a far more localized dilemma created within a state’s boundaries and with more extreme measures like outright bans on the sale of tobacco products.
Generational tobacco ban initiatives started to become more common following rumored to be floating the idea last year and the United Kingdom is currently inching closer and closer to ing their own generational tobacco ban, which is, so far, moving favorably through the House of Commons. “It shows it doesn’t take much for a bad idea to spread,” says Loope. “I think there’s half a dozen states that could be chomping at the bit to do what Massachusetts has done.”
