READING - Though out-of-town medical experts and public health advocates clearly favor the ban, a larger number of Reading’s citizens last week opposed the adoption of a local lifetime tobacco purchase ban for residents who will turn 21 after Jan. 1, 2025.
During a public hearing in Town Hall’s main hearing room last Thursday night, roughly a dozen everyday citizens labeled the proposed “Nicotine Free Generation” regulations being considered by the Board of Health as an attack on personal freedoms that would hurt Reading’s small convenience and liquor store owners.
However, that feedback was met by a smaller but equally passionate group of in-town regulation supporters, many of whom work in the health care industry and have watched patients and loved ones ravaged by cancer and other health conditions attributed to tobacco use.
“It’s a dirty habit, I agree, but that’s besides the point,” said Bancroft Road resident Narcissa Lyons of smoking. “It’s never reasonable to rob any sovereign of a god-given right. And to [impose this[ to a portion of the population is prejudicial and divisive.”
“Personally, both of my parents died from tobacco-related conditions,” later stated policy supporter and Pearl Street resident Nancy Docktor, who applauded the board for considering the local ban. “My father was a reconstructive plastic surgeon. He knew better. My mother had a heart attack in her fifties…She quit smoking when she was diagnosed with lung cancer and they removed part of her lobe.”
The Board of Health, which ultimately took no action on the proposed regulations, held last week’s hearing in order to gauge the public’s sentiments about a proposal which would prohibit all persons turning 21 after Dec. 31, 2024 from purchasing any products containing nicotine within the Town of Reading. The sales ban would apply to traditional tobacco products, e-cigarettes and vaping pens, and smokeless nicotine pouches that are marketed as alternatives to snuff and chewing tobacco.
The Board of Health, which is allowed under state law to enact “reasonable” controls on the purchase of tobacco products, is looking to join the neighboring communities of Wakefield, Stoneham, Melrose, and Wakefield in enacting the new purchase restrictions. It will render a final decision on the matter during a meeting tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 10.
During the public hearing, at least five out-of-town residents, many of whom are employed by advocacy groups in favor of the lifetime bans, argued the new sales restrictions could prevent a whole new generation of smokers from picking up a tobacco or nicotine-based product for the first time.
For example, Lisa Goodnight, the Tobacco Control Director for the Mass. Municipal Association, pointed out that prolonged tobacco use results in the deaths of more than 480,000 people in the United States every year. Many of those who pass away, Goodnight argued, picked up a tobacco or nicotine-based product before they turned 21.
Goodnight and Brookline resident Kate Silbaugh, who co-sponsored legislation in her hometown that led to the nation’s first-ever Tobacco-Free Generation Ban, further contend that the ban will over time ensure that underaged parties lose easy access to nicotine-containing products.
“Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable deaths I the United States. Nearly all tobacco use begins in early youth and adulthood, so reducing access to nicotine products is of great public health importance,” said Goodnight.
“As an adult, you don’t have the right to buy anything you want. You can’t buy asbestos or lead paint. And yet smoking has caused more harm than either of those,” said Silbaugh. “What’s the least painful way to wind-down [tobacco sales] for local businesses? The answer is this reform. It’s a slow phase out.”
However, local residents like Tim Matthew and Erin Calvo-Bacci - who is also the executive director of the state’s retail association - questioned whether the ban would simply drive tobacco sales and associated tax revenues to communities outside of Reading.
“I’m not a smoker and I’m not here to endorse smoking. I think it’s a disgusting habit. My concern is more associated with the slippery slope. I think what you have in mind has the best of intentions, but I think prohibition has had spotty results,” said Matthew.
Meanwhile, former Reading Quick Stop owner Daniel Dewar, who sold his business last year, contended that the Board of Health had a history of unfairly targeted convenience store owners when enacting flavor bans, minimum pricing criteria, and other types of sales restrictions in recent decades.
Though willing to admit that some of those local regulations - such as one that raised the minimum purchase age for tobacco products to 21 - have driven down youth smoking rates, Dewar believed the Board of Health was now moving its target by setting its sights on permissible adult behaviors.
“[Regional tobacco inspection coordinator Maureen Buzby] and her gang have done a good job getting the youth to [stop smoking]. But now you’re going after adults. It just makes no earthly sense to me,” Dewar said.
“Why don’t you go after the liquor stores of Dunkin’ Donuts or all that other bad stuff? It’s always the convenience stores you’re after,” added the longtime town merchant, who described it as unfair that flavored-tobacco product sales are banned in town when residents can go to any liquor store and buy alcohol with those same flavors.
As it turns out, many local residents are quite concerned that the Board of Health’s focus will turn to other products once the new tobacco sales restrictions have been in place.
“I don’t want my rights taken away from me,” said Bainbridge Road resident Jodi Roffi. “The next thing will be [doughnut sales ban] because they cause high blood-pressure and diabetes. Or perhaps it will be alcohol, which is just as bad. They next thing you’ll tell me is I can’t buy Dunkin Donuts coffee. Where do you get the right to tell me that?”
“I am adamantly opposed to unelected officials making rules to take rights away from people,” agreed B Street resident John Sasso. “Where does it end? Someone mentioned the slippery slope and I’m very afraid of that.”
Those on the other side of the issue contended that unlike many other products that may be harmful when consumed in great quantities, cigarettes and tobacco products can lead to death even when used in moderation.
Given those known and well-researched health effects, which include potential involuntary harms caused to others through exposure to second-hand smoke, residents like Kate Hefferon encouraged the Board of Health to enact the new restrictions.
“Tobacco is the only consumer product where when it used as directed, it kills you,” said Heffernon.
“When my uncle was 42, he was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. And if you’ve ever seen anyone die from lung cancer, it’s a really horrifying experience. It was awful,” Charles Street resident Emmy Dove later remarked. “Tobacco has absolutely no redeeming value and I fully support this [effort].”
