In 2020, the town of Brookline adopted an ordinance banning the purchase of nicotine products for anyone born after the year 2000, touting the move as a way to create a "nicotine-free generation." As is often the case when "nanny-state" policies materialize — similar to previous efforts to tax soft drinks that faced enormous consumer backlash — this ordinance was swiftly adopted by virtue-signaling politicians in other localities seeking to masquerade as public health crusaders.
Much like the circumstances that led to America’s "soda tax revolt," the public is once again being sold a laundry list of dubious benefits in exchange for a tradeoff in basic freedom. One could start by pointing out the arbitrary line Brookline drew in legislating that adults born after 2000 cannot buy nicotine, while those born before then still can. This effectively creates two classes of adults within the town’s own community. Sorry, 25-year-olds: you’re adult enough to buy beer, purchase marijuana, get drafted, or be arrested —but you’re still not adult enough to buy a nicotine pouch.
Equally disingenuous is the argument that enacting such policies does no economic damage to communities like Brookline. It should first be observed that, because Brookline drew such an arbitrary age limit, the policy is effectively being "phased in" on the consumer side — which means the economic harm is being phased in as well. Ultimately, the policy implication is obvious: nicotine consumers within the town limits will travel elsewhere to make their purchases. This will lead to a loss for local retailers, not just in terms of nicotine sales, but for every other "basket" item — such as chips or gasoline — that those consumers buy along with them. Let’s also not overlook the added costs, however modest, of forcing adults to travel outside their own community to purchase a legal product. Why raise costs on anyone when much of the current economic commentary is screaming about a widespread affordability crisis?
Perhaps the ultimate irony in politicians chasing this public health boogeyman is that it doesn’t appear nearly as terrorizing as they claim. As a result of changing consumer preferences and federal efforts — such as raising the legal age for nicotine to 21 — youth tobacco use currently stands at a 25-year low. Even more optimistically, legal nicotine consumers now have a variety of choices, such as nicotine pouches, which the FDA has found "pose lower risk of cancer and other serious health conditions" than cigarettes. Government science also shows that vaping consumers inhale far fewer harmful chemicals than traditional smokers. The growing availability of these alternative products marks a victory for public health, particularly as trends show cigarette smokers are switching to products that pose less risk. Rather than resorting to a prohibition that inevitably fuels black markets and fails to achieve its goals, we should allow this market for reduced-risk products to grow so that adult consumers can continue choosing safer alternatives over combustible tobacco.
The success of the reduced-risk market should compel places like Brookline to reconsider their preference for overcriminalization instead of freedom. While consumers are voluntarily switching to pouches and nicotine products that pose a lower risk of cancer, it is the politicians who are the ones still blowing smoke.
