RECENTLY, Commonwealth Beacon published a report on a new tobacco regulation trend that supposedly is gaining traction across Massachusetts. The article reported the policy, which originated in Brookline, is being introduced in various other cities and towns. The rule would effectively create a “nicotine-free generation” by barring the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to anyone born after a specific date, such as January 1, 2000, or January 1, 2004.
However, this report missed key facts and told only part of the story.
The reporter painted a misleading picture of Brookline’s experience with this policy. When Brookline’s Board of Health first considered the regulation, it did so without a consensus even among its own officials. In fact, the bylaw passed by a very slim margin at Town Meeting, and that was only after proponents circumvented the Board of Health’s initial lack of support.
Brookline is far from an ideal example of broad community backing. It’s actually a tale of rushed policy-making done behind closed doors that relied on the votes of a few rather than a groundswell of public support.
This pattern of pushing through new restrictions without genuine public input has continued elsewhere. Local boards of health have a broad range of regulatory power and are increasingly using their unchecked authority to pursue policies that impact the lives of thousands of adults and trample on civil liberties.
In Reading, for instance, a similar measure to Brookline’s bylaw was approved with almost no meaningful public debate or scrutiny. These tactics raise questions about the transparency and democratic integrity of the process. If the policy truly had wide support, why not welcome open discussion? Why avoid the community’s voice?
Since then, the reaction has been strong and growing. Thousands of letters have poured in from concerned citizens, objecting to these measures. Many see these policies for what they are: attacks on the rights of adults to make their own choices and a precursor to a new form of prohibition.
Contrary to the article’s portrayal of this policy as a wave sweeping across Massachusetts, the reality is much different. Many communities where it was proposed have either put discussions on hold or outright rejected it after hearing from their residents. Claiming that the policy is “catching on” is not just premature—it’s factually incorrect. It’s a narrative crafted by advocates hoping that perception will become reality.
Proponents like to argue that this measure is somehow a compassionate compromise, showing sensitivity to current nicotine users while safeguarding future generations. But this is disingenuous and deceptive. It’s not about compassion; it’s about control. These policies are thinly veiled attempts to prohibit adults from making their own choices to purchase legal, regulated products – and it’s all being done under the guise of public health.
If the concern is truly about public health, then why are flavored cannabis products—many of which are combustible—still widely available? Why do we see over 250 new liquor licenses being issued statewide? The hypocrisy is clear: if public health officials were genuinely concerned about “protecting” people from unhealthy habits, these other substances would be facing similar scrutiny. Instead, adults are trusted to make decisions about alcohol and marijuana, but when it comes to nicotine, they are suddenly incapable.
What’s more, tobacco use is at an all-time low, and youth access has been curtailed significantly thanks to existing regulations, effective enforcement, and public awareness campaigns. These new policies do nothing to further reduce youth access as they only restrict adult choice. Worse, many of the nicotine products being phased out under these bans are used primarily by people trying to quit smoking.
The fact is, the “nicotine-free generation” campaign is a misguided overreach that seeks to circumvent federal law and muddle the regulatory process. The energy and resources devoted to this agenda would be far better spent on more pressing public health issues that genuinely lack attention and resources.
As more people become informed about the “nicotine-free generation” and its real implications, resistance is growing. The public deserves to know the full story – not just a sanitized version that plays to an advocacy narrative. Brookline’s experience should be a cautionary tale, not a blueprint. Policies that infringe on the rights of law-abiding adults to buy legal products, all in the name of public health, set a dangerous precedent.
Let’s not dress up prohibition and call it compassion. This is about freedom of choice, and that’s something we must safeguard for all adults in Massachusetts.
Peter Brennan is the executive director of the New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association.
The post Don’t dress up prohibition and call it compassion appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.