Ahead of the January 21 City Council vote on whether to ban the sale of tobacco and e-cigarette products in Newton to those born after March 1, 2004, some officials and advocates for both smokers’ rights and for teens made impassioned pleas on both sides of the proposal.
On January 8, the Programs & Services Committee voted 5-2 to recommend that the full City Council approve the ban. If the ordinance is ultimately approved, Newton would become the 13th municipality in the state, including Needham and Brookline, to have enacted such a ban.
During the meeting, Councilor Julia Malakie asked teens who would be directly impacted by the ordinance — the four youth newly nominated to be members of the city’s Youth Commission — for their opinions on the possible tobacco ban. (In this same meeting, the committee had previously voted unanimously to recommend that the full City Council appoint all four nominees to the Youth Commission.)
“I really think it would be a good decision [to enact the ordinance],” said Eveyln (Evie) Shih, a nominee from Noble and Greenough School. “The pros outweigh the cons.”
Leyla Gustin of Newton North High School said she has witnessed the effects of tobacco on other teens and said a lack of access to those products would help prevent addiction.
“(The ordinance) would really benefit our community,” said Armine Freeman, a Newton South High School nominee.
Proponents cited health, mortality, and the dangers of addiction as the main reasons for pushing the ordinance forward. Those who spoke against it, including two City Councilors, were concerned about government overreach, among other issues.
After quoting dire statistics from the CDC on the dangers of nicotine, Councilor-at-Large Susan Albright warned that the “loudest” argument against enacting the ban is “that we’re preventing people from using [their] free will.” However, she pointed out that once a person is addicted, there is no free will. Albright also said that the government has intervened to protect the health of citizens many times in the past, and this is no different.
During the public comment period, a man who identified himself as Steve Snider and said he was not a smoker, expressed concern about the government interfering with adult choices. He said it is hypocritical to ban tobacco products while leaving other harmful substances like alcohol and cannabis alone.
He added that adults should be able to “evaluate their own personal risk” and make their own choices.
“It is taking away a choice that adults have,” echoed Councilor David Micley later in the discussion. “Our [governmental] power to limit is not limitless.”
Councilor Micley and Councilor Stephen Farrell ultimately voted against recommending the ban. Other members of the committee enthusiastically supported the idea.
“It’s not a fair fight … you’ve got a very sophisticated industry” that is always looking for new ways to hook young people to tobacco,” said Malakie.
“This is an important next step,” said Councilor Bill Humphrey. “These [tobacco] companies are not going away.”
Financial impact
Peter Brennan, executive director of NECSEMA (the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association), on January 14 said his organization is strongly against the proposed ordinance and believes these types of decisions should be made at the state level.
Ahead of the City Council meeting on January 21, he said he will be encouraging Newton business owners to make their voices heard on the measure, which he said “is a very ineffective means of making sure these products don’t fall into the hands of youth.”
Calling the proposal “virtue signaling,” Brennan echoed some of the views expressed during the Programs & Services meeting by saying “I think adults can make their own decisions. … What’s next? Are we going to ban candy?”
He said the most immediate impact would be on the economic health of the 35 Newton businesses that are licensed to sell tobacco and nicotine products.
“You’re causing a known harm to retailers” with the ban, said Brennan.
Although he did not have specific statistics for the Newton retailers, he said that sales of nicotine products can sometimes represent 25% to 30% of in-store revenue, depending on the shop. Brennan said that loss would impact the “enterprise” or total value of the stores.
“These businesses are right in the crossfire,” he said.
In addition, shops “don’t just lose the nicotine sales,” pointed out Brennan. They could miss out on the sales of other merchandise if people who are not allowed to buy nicotine products shop elsewhere.
Mayor Ruthanne Fuller acknowledged the concerns of those city stores in her January 10 newsletter, where she said some owners “have reached out to the City Council concerned that a loss of potential cigarette sales could adversely impact their businesses.”
However, other speakers at the January 8 meeting brought up a different kind of financial impact.
A man who identified himself as Anthony Ishak, a pharmacist from Brookline, said decreasing the number of people addicted to nicotine could help save money in the future since so many resources go toward the healthcare costs of tobacco-related illnesses.
“Across the nation and Massachusetts, we are experiencing challenges with healthcare costs and strains on the healthcare system,” said Mayor Fuller in her January 10 newsletter. “Smoking-related illnesses, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancers, contribute significantly to the challenges.”
Mayor Fuller said those wishing to comment ahead of the January 21 meeting could email the City Council at citycouncil@newtonma.gov.
