BROOKLINE, Mass. — A Massachusetts town that has passed an unusual ordinance banning the sale of tobacco to anyone born in the 21st century is being seen as a possible model for other cities and towns hoping to further restrict cigarettes and tobacco products.
The ordinance — the first of its kind in the nation — was passed by Brookline in 2020 and was upheld by the state Supreme Court last week, opening the door for other communities to adopt similar bans that would eventually end up decades from now will block all future. no longer buying tobacco for generations.
The rule, which bans tobacco sales to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000, went into effect in 2021 in the city of about 60,000 next to Boston.
Under a Massachusetts law signed by former Republican Governor Charlie Baker in 2018, anyone under the age of 21 is already banned from purchasing tobacco products — including cigarettes, cigars and e-cigarettes — in the state.
Supporters of the Brookline measure point out that state law recognizes the authority of local communities to enact their own measures to restrict the sale of harmful products.
However, critics of the Brookline law, including convenience store owners who rely on the sale of tobacco products for a significant portion of their income, disagreed, arguing that the Brookline law conflicts with the 2018 state law which allows people over the age of 21 to purchase tobacco products. tobacco products – and it would create two groups of adults, one who could buy cigarettes and one who could not.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court sided with Brookline, noting that cities and towns “have a long history of regulating tobacco products to curb the known adverse health effects of tobacco use.”
“Importantly, state law and local ordinances and statutes can, and often do, coexist,” the court added. “This is especially true of local ordinances and statutes regulating public health, the importance of which we have long recognized.”
Peter Brennan, executive director of the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, said the group is exploring whether the decision could possibly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He noted that while the law focuses on tobacco, the rules for marijuana remain the same.
“The question is how else can we demonize this product,” Brennan said. “It’s about wanting to be a trendsetter and be the first in the country.”
Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers of Massachusetts Association, also criticized the ruling, saying it could lead to a hodgepodge of regulations.
“351 different rules don’t make sense for interstate commerce. Local government should focus on schools, public safety, garbage services, etc.,” Hurst wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Brookline’s approach focuses only on the next generation of potential tobacco users, not current buyers, said Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University’s School of Law, who represented Brookline.
“Friday’s ruling makes it absolutely clear that any city or town in Massachusetts can start the clock on ending the sale of tobacco products by following Brookline’s example, without fear of a legal challenge,” Gottlieb said.
Other governments have considered similar measures.
In 2022, New Zealand passed a similar law designed to impose a lifetime ban on young people buying cigarettes, by stating that tobacco can never be sold to anyone born on or after January 1, 2009. The new Prime Minister of the country has said it plans to repeal the law.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last year proposed raising the legal age at which people in England can buy cigarettes by one year every year until it is eventually illegal for the entire population.
A handful of cities in Massachusetts have considered similar bans, including proposals that would prohibit the sale of tobacco or e-cigarette products to anyone born on or after January 1, 2004.
Massachusetts has taken a number of steps in recent decades to curb smoking in the state, including raising taxes on cigarettes.
In 2022, 10.4% of adults in Massachusetts reported smoking cigarettes.
The court pointed to an earlier ruling in the case of a company licensed to operate cigarette vending machines in Provincetown. The group argued that a state law banning only the sale of cigarettes through vending machines to minors preempted a local ordinance banning the sale of cigarettes through vending machines.
The court sided with the city, arguing that state and local laws were not inconsistent because both prohibited the sale of cigarettes through vending machines to minors.
