In the last few years the idea of a free generation in which tobacco sales would be prohibited to all people born after a certain date has gained some traction. Ever since the idea was first proposed by some Singapore researchers in 2010, I have thought it was a bad idea.
Other than declining to endorse such proposals and privately expressing skepticism, I have not said much about it.
Now, I want to add my voice to Ruth Malone and Tim McAfee’s cogent analysis of the shortcomings of the idea and Physicians for a Smokefree Canada’s public skepticism. Both were, however, still willing to consider the idea of a tobacco free generation as part of a package of other tobacco control policies. While I agree with their analyses, I think the logical conclusion is that the tobacco free generation policy idea should be abandoned completely.
My reasons for opposing the tobacco-free generation idea, like the commentators listed above, include:
- The policy takes a very long time to have any effect. The effective date is always in the future, so there is no immediate effect on tobacco consumption.
- Tobacco control advocacy resources are limited. Devoting resources to TFG necessarily means less resources devoted to other, proven effective strategies including clean indoor air, tax increases, strong anti-tobacco media campaigns, bans on flavored tobacco products, tobacco 21, limiting sales outlet density, and maintaining prohibitions on “new tobacco products” in places with such prohibitions.
- When the TFG is limited to a “smoke-free generation”, i.e., limited to combustible tobacco products, it actually reinforces the industry’s “harm reduction” narrative.
- TFG laws will become increasingly difficult to enforce as more and more people pass the prohibited age threshold. Does anyone seriously think that retailers would demand proof of age for a 35 year old adult?
- TFG provides an opportunity for politicians to do something on tobacco while not implementing proven policies that would benefit public health now.
To this list, I would add:
- TFG laws are unlikely to be sustained in the long run. While there is a broad consensus on prohibiting sales to youth, how would the law be defended when it is legal for a 22 year-old adult to buy tobacco, but not a 21 year-old adult? Or a 32 year-old adult but not a 31 year-old adult? Once such a law took effect, the door would be wide open for industry allies to demand repeal on the grounds that the law was ridiculous and unworkable.
Public health policy makers and advocates should stop allowing TFG to distract us from focusing on things that actually work and work quickly.
Stanton Glantz blog 
Here is a link to the full text of Malone/McAfee Birthdate-based sales policy analysis published in Tobacco Control, available through escholarship: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/40349906.
LikeLike
Stan – There are good answers to all of your concerns.
But first, as Ruth and Tim made clear, I strongly agree that NFG is not the right policy for every jurisdiction. It can only work in places that already have strong smokefree laws, good excise tax rates, strict regulation of sales permits, and a functioning enforcement infrastructure. Absent these elements, it is probably premature to consider “endgame” approaches at all.
What NFG does do, albeit slowly, is to set an expiration date for all tobacco sales. It does not replace capping and winnowing of tobacco sales permits. It is not an excuse for continuing to sell flavored tobacco products. It puts jurisdictions on a slow road to an endgame that, I believe, will encourage acceleration through other complementary policies such as limiting sales to adult only locations, banning flavors, and declining to issue new tobacco sales permits. Once your are on a road to an endgame, it only makes sense to enact policies to make it an easier and faster road for getting from point A (current tobacco sales) to point B (no tobacco sales). Rather than diverting resources, I think NFG will actually increase policy activity and policymaker engagement.
You are concerned that the effective date is always in the future. As you know, the policy is designed to have no impact on existing customers. It doesn’t force users to quit but, rather, seeks to radically reduce initiation. Thus, it only affects the next generation. So, for example, in the six jurisdictions in Massachusetts that have passed this policy thus far in 2024, it will apply only to persons who turn 21 in 2025 or later. That’s actually a pretty fast turnaround for a new policy to have an impact. And that impact will grow every year.
I agree that the “Smokefree Generation” version of the policy misses the mark by exempting the very products that are hooking the next generation. We are not doing that in Massachusetts even though it makes it a harder lift. We could have exempted menthol cigarettes from our flavor ban in 2019. There was a great deal of pressure to do so but our coalition held firm. Here, too, the goal is to prevent the next generation from getting their brains hijacked with risky and expensive nicotine products of any kind.
I think your prediction that enforcement becomes difficult is off the mark. Rather than a new date set every day for retailers to track (as is the case now), there is simply one permanent and universal birthdate to check. This actually simplifies enforcement rather dramatically. Jurisdictions must currently enforce the minimum sales age of 21 through operations using underage purchasers who are often teenagers. This can be tricky to do. It is actually gets easier to conduct enforcement when the policy applies to 35 year-olds (as in your example). If a retailer fails routine compliance testing and sells to a purchaser born after the NFG date, fines, permit suspensions, and loss of tobacco sales permits will result. So, yes, retail clerks will check IDs or lose their jobs.
Your concern about how the policy would be defended when a 22 year-old can be sold tobacco products but a 21 year-old cannot is the same issue that arises in every policy with a so-called “grandfather” clause: Some folks are eligible for the clause and others are not. It has not been a problem in Brookline, MA where that line is now between the 23 and 24 year-olds.
Importantly, the policy steadily increases the age gap between high school kids and older peers who may provide them with tobacco products. In Brookline, that gap is now between 16 year-olds in high school and 24 year-olds who can be sold tobacco in the town. That’s eight years Not too long ago, older kids in high school could purchase and share tobacco products in Brookline. In 2026, there will be a ten-year age gap which is well out of “older peer” range. I believe that the data will show a decrease in youth initiation coinciding with implementation of NFG.
Again, this policy is not for everyone. But in states that allow local tobacco policymaking and have strong and mature policies and enforcement infrastructure already in place, (e.g., Massachusetts and California, among others) NFG could accelerate the realization of endgame goals long before the potential 70+ years that it would take until everyone in participating jurisdictions that can now purchase tobacco has died.
LikeLike
These enforcement efforts will take a lot of resources and are of dubious effectiveness when there are other policies available. The key word is “slow.”
LikeLike
Jurisdictions are already enforcing the age 21 law. NFG does not add to the current enforcement burden. It simplifies it.
What endgame policy do you recommend for a California community that already has a workplace ban, significant taxation, a flavor ban, and caps permits, but is not ready to go the way of Beverly Hills? There are probably a lot of them. I think NFG is worthy of consideration. And whatever policy you suggest, Stan, I think that it would likely complement NFG and create synergy.
BTW, I really enjoy your blog!
LikeLike
Agree with Gottlieb; why not utilize both TFG and all the other approaches, until latter eventually become less needed? Seems like TFG could be the ultimate denormalization strategy. And of course perfection is the enemy of the good…
LikeLike
Your comment ignores the fact that tobacco control advocacy resources are limited. Putting effort into TFG means less resources for effective policies.
Another problem is that politicians often like to “move on” after “solving” a problem. They could pass TFG then say there is no need to do anything else because the effect is so sweeping.
LikeLike
Another issue to consider is the possibility/probability that the measure will be successfully challenged under human rights laws.
While these laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there are some common principles across them – including non-discrimination. Phasing in prohibition in this way is such a novel approach it will almost certainly invite a test before jurists. The onus will be on governments to establish that it is reasonable and proportional to criminalize sales to 34 year olds that are legal for 35 year old customers.
The UK department asserted that the measure was compliant with European Human Rights Convention, but offered no legal opinion to support this. It deferred a “full justice impact assessment” to a later date.
LikeLike