Legislation being proposed at the state level would clarify the minimum age for sale of adult-use products and limit the power of local authorities.
If passed, House Bill No. 5271 and companion bill Senate No. 2999 would require local governments to align with state restrictions around the sale of tobacco and cannabis products, alcohol and online sports gaming. Current legislation empowers local boards to enforce regulations stricter than the state standard, but H.5271 and S.2999 would flip the script, cementing 21 as the minimum legal age for purchase of adult-use products across Massachusetts.
The House bill — originally introduced as H.330 by Rep. Daniel Cahill of Lynn — is undergoing a redraft. The accompanying Senate bill, introduced by William Driscoll Jr. of Norfolk, Plymouth and Bristol, was reported favorably and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
The proposed legislation would have an adverse impact on municipalities such as Needham that historically have chosen to adopt stricter policies around the sale of adult-use products.
“I think there’s two sides of this, right?” said Rep. Josh Tarsky. “One is that you want adults to be able to make decisions on their own, which, statewide, is 21 if this bill is passed. It also would establish uniformity across the state, which makes it often easier for consumers and citizens to know the law across the entire state. … On the flip side, looking at it from Needham’s point of view, if it did preempt [the Board of Health] from these types of rules and laws, it would make our youth more vulnerable to a known carcinogen.”
Those in favor of the bills argue a statewide standard is a necessary response to the piecemeal legislation currently emerging. H.330’s emergency preamble names economic instability and consumer confusion as primary concerns, noting the bill is necessary for “immediate preservation of the public convenience.”
The Massachusetts’ chapter of the American Heart Association, the state chapter of the American Lung Association, the Office of Government Relations at Children’s Hospital, the Coalition for Local Public Health, and Needham’s Board of Health have raised concerns in response to the proposed legislation.
Tim McDonald, Needham’s director of health and human services, voiced concern around limiting local authorities’ ability to make choices that benefit individual communities.
“Local boards of health and local health departments are concerned about that because they believe that the elements of local control that enable an elected or appointed board of health to understand their community — to sort of ascertain the risk levels and then to make the best decision with their judgment — would be sort of removed for a one-size-fits-all state standard,” he said.
Needham’s Board of Health first learned about the proposed legislation from board member Stephen Epstein at an April meeting. Surprised and concerned, they reached out to Tarsky and Sen. Becca Rausch, hoping the representatives would have a better sense for the bill’s popularity in the State House.
“There’s always a little bit of a challenge understanding the tea leaves at Beacon Hill,” McDonald said. “Sometimes bills are proposed and then they go to a committee to be studied and then they come out; sometimes they go to a committee to never see the light of day again. It’s not always clear which one is which, or which bills fall into which categories.”
McDonald said the Board of Health is willing to issue a formal response — whether through a joint letter, calls from each board member to representatives, or communication with the governor — but have yet to identify the most effective way to weigh in.
Needham’s Board of Health is looking to state reps not only for perspective, but also for their partnership in opposing the bills’ progress. “This is a fundamental change that we think would radically alter the way local boards of health and local public health departments do their work,” said McDonald. “And we obviously don’t support that, and we hope they understand the gravity of what is proposed — and [we hope] they would vote against it if it came up to the floor.”
Tarsky said he is waiting on a final redraft to clarify the boundaries of the bill but has already looked at ways for Needham to move forward if the bill is passed. If preemptions allow, he said, Needham could consider restricting the licensure of local stores.
“Needham will still be able to say, ‘We’re not gonna allow tobacco sales or issue licenses for tobacco sales within our bounds,’ which actually might be a more efficient model, period,” he said. “I mean, we don’t know what the bill’s final shape looks like, but if it doesn’t preempt Needham from doing that, then that would be another step Needham could take, and the Board of Health could still take, to do what it feels is necessary to protect Needham.”
Though he has not yet decided his stance on the bill, Tarsky — whose mother and grandmother had health complications linked to years of smoking — is sympathetic to the board’s concerns.
“If we know that there is a product out there that is harming our citizens, I think there is a lot of good reason to restrict it, and restrict it more strictly than the age of 21. But I understand adults want to be able to make their own decisions and have the ability to [take] things that can possibly harm them. And I think there is a lot of good reason for the Legislature saying this would create uniformity and less confusion, make laws more enforceable.”
“At a minimum, I’d like to see … municipalities still have control over what, over the permitting and license, right? I think that’s reasonable,” he added. Tarsky said it is difficult to predict the popularity of the bill or a likely outcome before the redraft is finalized.
If decisions are not made before the current legislative session ends July 31, the bill will have to be refiled for the next session.
Save as PDF