Imagine the year is 2065 in Newton, Mass. On a rainy Saturday morning, I walk into my local 7-Eleven and make my way over to the checkout. I place a lottery ticket, a six-pack of Coors Banquet, and a can of Zyn on the counter. The cashier asks me for my ID, which seems odd, given I am 59 years old. Flattered, I slide my Massachusetts driver’s license across to him. The vendor picks it up, gives it a bend, and squints. His eyes dart back and forth between my photo and face before he hands it back to me.
“Sorry sir, you’re too young,” he says.
His concern wasn’t about my wasteful spending on the lottery ticket or the known negative health effects of alcohol consumption. Instead, his refusal of sale was because, back in the year 2025, the city of Newton passed a generational nicotine ban preventing the sale of nicotine products to anyone born after March 1, 2004.
On Jan. 21, 2025, the Newton City Council passed a complete ban on selling and purchasing nicotine products. Those born before the specified date will be grandfathered in and still allowed to purchase these products. The ordinance follows a precedent set by Brookline, which passed a similar, highly controversial ban in 2020. The ordinance made its way to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Brookline, citing the town’s duty to protect its citizens from nicotine’s negative health effects. Since then, Stoneham, Wakefield, Melrose, Winchester, Malden, Reading, Needham, and most recently, Newton have all passed similar generational bans.
While the law undoubtedly has good intentions—preserving the population’s health—it is nearly impossible to enforce.
I do not believe that this idealistic policy is an effective deterrent. On paper, it will indefinitely prevent the sale of any products in Newton for the next generation, and perhaps even the generation after that. Yet Newton is sandwiched between Watertown and Wellesley, municipalities that permit the sale of nicotine products for eligible adults. Since the ordinance does not forbid the possession of nicotine, someone only needs to travel to and from these areas to purchase these products.
Beyond that, banning substances generally leads to their purchase from unsafe sources or figures. Many illegal dealers will likely arise within the city, creating a system of black markets throughout the district.
For instance, the Prohibition Era saw the rise of mafia activity and crime bosses specializing in the distribution of banned alcohol. Though this would occur on a smaller scale, it would still likely cause small networks to vend nicotine products. So, in addition to negatively impacting the livelihood of active legal vendors, it would perpetuate and exacerbate existing illegal dealings.
The law then challenges the extent to which the government should protect its citizens from vices. Put simply: Where does liberty end and protection begin? It seems clear where the federal government stands, allowing citizens to make decisions by age 21 with far greater ramifications than buying a pack of cigarettes. You can vote for the president of the United States of America, draft your own will, or even be drafted to fight on foreign soil. Still, the city of Newton draws the line in the sand at buying nicotine products.
Venturing into this regulatory territory undoubtedly brings society’s most popular drug into focus: alcohol.
“To me, [tobacco] is unlike cannabis. It is unlike alcohol … it is more like assault weapons. It is more like guns. It is more like asbestos,” Ward 4 Councilor-at-Large Joshua Krintzman said in a statement to The Heights. “What we do in our society when we find products like that that have no beneficial use is we prohibit them, we get rid of them, we try to get them out of our society.”
This comparison is absurd. Despite alcohol’s distinct role within American culture as the most socially acceptable drug, it is still responsible for at least 178,000 deaths per year.
But, still, many people have a glass of wine with dinner, and likewise many recreationally use nicotine. Krintzman’s parallel between the substances is a faulty analogy. Neither alcohol nor nicotine have any health benefits, yet one remains legal, the other illegal.
Ultimately, the policy is neither rationally justified nor politically justified. It will be ineffective and just appears to be the Newton Council waving their fists in the air claiming they can legislate morality.
The City Council’s decision is rife with idealistic sentiment, yet it is completely hypocritical. It is not impactful, fails to consider political consequences, and ignores the liberty of rational adults to purchase substances. I believe this ban is an ignorant and futile endeavor.
Leave a Reply