Massachusetts has never been shy about leading the nation on public health initiatives, but when it comes to tobacco policy, the state risks taking a detour from evidence-based solutions to political theater.
Legislation being considered would make it illegal for anyone born after January 1, 2006, to purchase nicotine products. Framed as a “Nicotine Free Generation” proposal, the bills aim to phase out tobacco use entirely by cutting off legal access for younger generations. While the goal may sound good on the surface, the reality of this kind of policymaking is troubling.
In addition to already existing federal law, Massachusetts was one of the first to raise the legal age for tobacco and nicotine products to 21. It was a policy grounded in public health evidence and personal freedom — young adults are able to legally make their own choices, but youth access is limited. In addition, the state banned flavor tobacco and vaping products, a move intended to further limit teen usage. But that ban didn’t eliminate adult demand, it simply pushed consumers to the illicit market or across state lines.
The state’s own Illegal Tobacco Task Force reported increases in tobacco smuggling and law enforcement interactions after the flavor ban went into effect. Meanwhile, convenience stores and small retailers took a hit while underground sellers flourished. Obviously, illicit sellers avoid product regulations and age checks.
The generational ban would repeat these mistakes on a bigger scale. Prohibition never succeeds in eliminating demand, it just shifts it. Young adults will still seek out nicotine products. The difference is they’ll find them in neighboring states or on street corners instead of in regulated stores. Massachusetts is not an island, and good intentions don’t automatically equal good policy.
New Zealand introduced a similar generational ban, only to swiftly repeal it due to overwhelming backlash and concerns about revenue loss. Malaysia also walked back its version of the policy. Even the UK’s proposed plan has sparked fierce resistance, especially among voters who view it as an arbitrary overreach into personal freedom.
The vision of this law is that in a few decades, two 50-year-olds could walk into the same Massachusetts convenience store, but the one born in January 2006 as opposed to December 2005 would be barred from purchasing nicotine products. Nobody actually thinks this makes sense.
There’s also a glaring inconsistency at play for other risk behaviors. At 21, Massachusetts adults can legally drink alcohol, gamble at the casino, or consume cannabis products. But under this proposal, if it’s the year 2036, then a 30-year-old would be able to legally smoke marijuana but not buy a nicotine pouch.
Meanwhile, unelected local boards of health across Massachusetts have already tried to impose their own “Nicotine Free Generation” ordinances, and voters have pushed back. If Massachusetts state legislators truly represent the will of their constituents, they should take that signal seriously.
This common misconception never seems to go away, but nicotine isn’t what causes cancer or smoking-related deaths. Research shows again and again that nicotine isn’t a carcinogen, and the harm from smoking comes from the thousands of other chemicals within tobacco smoke. That’s why nicotine alternatives like vapes, pouches, and heat-not-burn products exist, many of which have been granted Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) status by the FDA. They’re tools for harm reduction, and they’re working.
If we want to reduce smoking rates and related illnesses and deaths, we should be embracing those alternatives, not banning them. Just look at Sweden, the country kept taxes low on nicotine alternatives and allowed a full range of flavors. Smoking rates dropped 55% in a decade. Today, Sweden has the lowest smoking-related death rate in Europe and is on track to become the first smoke-free country in the EU.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, seems more interested in repeating past failures than learning from global success stories. The flavored tobacco ban didn’t work, and a generational ban won’t either.
Originally published here