Copyright keenesentinel
Should cities and towns have the right to enact age restrictions on the sale of products deemed harmful to your health? Or should the state alone possess the sole authority over these matters? Recently, industry and advocacy groups have urged Massachusetts lawmakers to address legal loopholes concerning age restrictions on intoxicating products. One primary impetus stems from unregulated hemp-derived consumables that are federally legal but can contain psychoactive cannabinoids, allowing them to be sold to underage individuals. State lawmakers have actively pushed legislation to regulate intoxicating hemp products and close loopholes that allow for unregulated sales, with advocates seeking swift legislative action. With a legislative overhaul of the Cannabis Control Commission having already passed this spring in the House, a May report indicated legislators were pushing for more forceful action to regulate intoxicating hemp-derived products. This legal challenge arose because the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 legalized hemp containing less than 0.3 percent THC by volume. This created a loophole that allows manufacturers to chemically alter hemp into intoxicating cannabinoids, like Delta-8 THC. Products created by this loophole are often sold in unregulated shops like convenience stores or vape shops, outside the stricter controls of state-licensed cannabis dispensaries. They frequently feature bright, child-friendly packaging and can be sold to minors, bypassing age-verification requirements. Licensed cannabis businesses, which operate under heavy regulation and taxation, contend that these unregulated products pose unfair competition. Advocates, including those in public health, argue that legislation is necessary to protect minors and young adults from potentially harmful and potent products, and ensure that intoxicating products be sold in a regulated market with clear statewide age restrictions, similar to alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis sold in licensed dispensaries. However, groups like Nicotine-Free Generation Coalition advocate for local bans to regulate a “deadly, addictive substance” that they say specifically targets youth. Others contend that such local bans allow cities and towns to act as testing grounds for future statewide policy. The legislation can also be viewed as a reaction to a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling that allowed the town of Brookline to continue implementing a stricter, generational tobacco-buying ban, a sign of ongoing efforts at both local and state levels to tighten age-restricted product regulations. Northampton and Belchertown also currently have generational tobacco bans that prohibit anyone born in 2004 or later from ever purchasing these addictive and harmful substances. Brookline’s generational tobacco ban prohibits the sale of all tobacco and e-cigarette products to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2000. This law, which went into effect in September 2021, means that individuals born in the 21st century are forever banned from purchasing these products in Brookline. The House’s Cannabis Control Commission reform bill moved to the state Senate, which created another variation of the legislation. A bill sponsored by Sen. William Driscoll Jr., a Milton Democrat, aims to establish a clear, consistent statewide minimum age of 21 for purchasing and accessing several adult-use products and activities, including alcohol, cannabis products, tobacco products, and online sports gaming. The legislation explicitly states that setting a uniform age requirement represents a matter of statewide concern, and will supersede any local laws or regulations that might establish different age restrictions. By doing so, the bill ensures that adult consumers can purchase these products and participate in online sports gaming throughout the state, regardless of local municipal ordinances. The bill received a hearing by the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure on Monday. It would provide clarity and consistency for both consumers and retailers by eliminating potential age-based purchasing discrepancies between different local jurisdictions. And now another bill in the House virtually mirrors that Senate measure. It would prohibit municipal boards of health from implementing community-wide bans on the sale of any legal consumer product. Sponsored by state Rep. Paul K. Frost, an Auburn Republican, the bill would prevent boards of health in cities and towns from banning the sale of any legal consumer product by authorized stores, establishments and any other entities legally allowed by the state to sell such products. Critics of local bans, such as convenience store trade groups, argue that boards of health should not have the power to create community-wide sales bans without broader municipal approval. Some claim that bans simply push consumers to neighboring towns, causing local businesses to lose tax revenue. While this bill does not reference nicotine or tobacco in its text, it would prevent municipalities from instituting tobacco and nicotine bans and regulations independent of the state’s rules. Since the state’s highest court has already upheld one town’s authority to impose a generational tobacco ban, it’s not yet clear what would happen to towns with pre-existing rules should some version of these bills pass. Whether you’re a licensed cannabis retailer seeking a level playing field in regards to hemp products, or a convenience store association opposed to municipal bans of tobacco and other products, one state standard would provide the remedy. That can be accomplished through the Legislature, the appropriate avenue for establishing regulations every community must follow. — Sentinel & Enterprise, Fitchburg, Mass.
