A bill to introduce further restrictions on retail sales of nicotine based products is wending it’s way through the aldermanic process. I read about the proposed bill a while ago in the Newton Tab. The bill has already been approved by the aldermen’s Program & Services Committee and is coming up for a vote by the full board this week on April 22.
Until I went into my local variety store yesterday, the bill sounded fine to me. One detail that was not clear, at least to me, in coverage so far is that retailers that are legally allowed to sell cigarettes will no longer be allowed to sell e-cigarettes. This completely stunned me.
I know two people who have quit smoking after many years with the help of e-cigarettes. One of them is my wife who kicked the smoking habit after 30 years of smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. The e-cigarettes were a huge help to her during the transition and within about a month she was off both regular and e-cigarettes and has been nicotine free for about two years now.
Here’s what’s even more puzzling about the aldermen’s approach. Should this bill become law, the same stores that will no longer be able to sell e-cigarettes will still be selling real cigarettes. While there are certainly some questions about e-cigarettes safety, there’s virtually no one who thinks they are more dangerous that real cigarettes.
The upshot of it all is that convenience stores will still be selling cigarettes as always but will not be allowed to sell e-cigarettes which are safer and are extremely useful tool for the very difficult job of kicking the nicotine habit. It sure sounds misguided to me.
I just checked the agenda for the upcoming aldermen meeting and it says the bill would
that would appear to say that standard e-cigarettes will still be allowed to be sold by convenience stores. That’s definitely not what my local convenience store has been told though.
It’s possible that I’ve gone off half cocked on this post with bad information – it wouldn’t be the first time 😉 If anyone has a definitive answer of whether or not the bill would ban standard e-cigarettes from convenience stores, please weigh in.
How about the alderman let grown ups make their own decisions?
Mike (Not Striar) – the aim of the bill is minors not grown ups. I’m just concerned that it might unwittingly affect the grown ups too – and not in a good way.
The road to hell is paved with 1000 good intentions.
Mike
Lawmakers sometimes get the idea that Newton is an island and it takes many days to sail to the next location. The effect of Newton restrictions is only to reduce profit of Newton business. No kids ever get fireworks in Newton, do they
Needham raised the age for buying cigarettes to 21 nearly 10 a decade ago and the town is still standing. But Hoss if you are really worried about the plight of mom and pop stores in Newton (and everyone should be) then you should support a ban of UPS trucks on residential streets.
Greg Reibman — You keep mentioning what you see as the evil e-commerce — why not embrace it and encourage Newton business to join in? That I don’t get
The mom and pops that are the context here are the local variety stores. They profit off smokes and lottery. There’s no profit in Pepsi and Doritos at that scale. The lottery will naturally take a hit with casinos. Taking a one-two punch with lottery then smokes ain’t right. Ted Hess Mahan makes a good point about 18 – 20 year olds on foreign soil empowered to do very mature things with weapons, and here Newton says they can’t buy a nice cigar back home? Crazy.
@Hoss: Setting up an e-commerce site isn’t easy or cheap. Competing with Amazon, Zappos or any other giant is daunting.
This is yet another disgraceful infringement by the government into the private life of adults. The government has no more business telling an 18 year old they can’t buy an e-cig, than they do telling an 18 year old they can’t get an abortion.
In one instance they have an option to compete… in the other you are prohobiting them from making a profit because a BS sense of higher morality.
What an adult chooses to buy is not your business.
I’ve never understood the mentality of someone who is so arrogant they think they should get to make the decisions for other adults about what they do with their own bodies. Funny how they all find their ways into various political offices.
Jerry we are actually treating E-Cigs in the same manner as traditional tobacco products. Flavored tobacco was prohibited 5 years ago by the federal government because they were clearly marketing to youngsters. Nicotine delivery products or E-Cigs contain highly addictive nicotine and should be regulated.
Though youth smoking of traditional cigarettes is trending downward, we are seeing the opposite happen with E-cigs. Both Newton high schools have expressed concern that there is a fair amount of experimentation going on with E-cigs and asked if there was something that could be done. This new ordinance is specifically designed to keep tobacco and nicotine delivery products more difficult and expensive for youth to access.
The safety of “vaping” is still in question. They are not yet regulated by the FDA, so we don’t necessarily know what is in them. Chemicals such as diethylene glycol, and nitrosamines have been detected. It is true that they expose users and people around them to less toxins, but that doesn’t mean they are risk free. It took decades for the risks of tobacco cigarettes to emerge, and nobody yet knows what the long term effects of “vaping” will be.
Adult E-Cig users will still be able to purchase the product in Newton at retail tobacco and “vape” stores.
Allison, does the city regulate nicotine gum and patches? Just wondering whether any distinction can rationally be drawn between these products since they are all nicotine delivery devices as opposed to tobacco products.
Hi Lisap,
Good question! The ordinance defines a nicotine delivery product as; “any manufactured article or product made wholly or in part of a tobacco substitute or containing nicotine that is expected or intended for human consumption, but not including a product approved by the U.S FDA for sale as a tobacco use cessation or harm reduction product or for other medical purposes and which is being marketed and sold solely for that approved purpose. Nicotine delivery products include, but are not limited to cigarettes.”
My take on this language is that if the FDA approves E-Cigs as a smoking cessation device then this ordinance would not longer apply to them.
@Alison– I have a question as well. I’ll assume you support an 18 year old’s right to vote, get an abortion, and enlist in the military. [Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of those]. My question is, how do you justify drawing a distinction between those other rights and the right to buy cigarettes or an e-cig?
@Alison
I don’t think so. I beleive under the new rules convenience stores will continue selling cigarettes but no longer be allowed to sell e-cigarettes which are a helpful smoking cessation tool. It doesn’t make sense to me.
The only rationale is to keep e-cigarettes away from minors yet they are already illegal for minors. It seems to be a case of saying we aren’t enforcing our current law so lets instead pass a law aimed at adults instead.
The result of the proposed Newton ordinance would change nothing about the legality of 18 to 20 year olds smoking. It will remain 100% legal for them to buy and use “nicotine delivery products”. The rule only targets Newton business and their ability to sell. A win for business in Waltham, Watertown, Allston, etc.
Hoss– Just to clarify… The linked article in the Tab says the proposed ordinance would raise the purchase age to 21 in Newton.
Mike Striar — I get that part. An equivalent ordinance would be to ban leafblower use by landscapers that operate out of Newton (but not others). The only effect on the proposed nicotine restriction is on Newton retailers, not Newton residents. It would remain 100% legal for an 18 year old to buy and smoke — but not legal for a Newton retailer participate in the selling part
If that’s still confusing, picture a party of 18 year olds — one weekend they’re drinking booze, another weekend their smoking Marlboros. Same address in Newton. The booze is the only offense — the ordinance can’t change the smoking age
This proposal has so many things wrong that you can pick and choose which aspect you dislike most. Personally, I’m tired of seeing 18-20 year olds get the short end of the stick from politicians.
“But Hoss if you are really worried about the plight of mom and pop stores in Newton (and everyone should be) then you should support a ban of UPS trucks on residential streets.”
The State of New Jersey tried something like that a few years ago, banning trucks from local routes. They got a pretty quick smack down too because of the Commerce Clause. Oh, that pesky Constitution.