Walgreens Changes Minimum Age to Buy Tobacco Products While States Pass Related Laws
Walgreens will be raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21, in accordance to the growing trend of states passing legislation over the issue.
April 25, 2019 at 04:14 PM
4 minute read
Following scrutiny from the Food and Drug Administration in February, Walgreens announced earlier this week it will be raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21.
The policy will become effective Sept. 1, the company said in the press release and follows the trend of states passing legislation to raise the legal age to 21 to purchase tobacco products.
“We've seen positive results from other recent efforts to strengthen our policies related to tobacco sales, and believe this next step can be even more impactful to reduce its use among teens and young adults,” Walgreens' president of operations Richard Ashworth said in the press release.
In February, former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb put Walgreens on notice by filing two complaints which sought to bar a Walgreens store in Charleston, South Carolina, from selling tobacco products for 30 days. Gottlieb said at the time the company had racked up almost 1,800 violations for selling tobacco to minors across the country.
A spokesperson for Walgreens declined to comment beyond the press release.
Matthew L. Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement that Walgreens should not be selling tobacco at all.
“As a family pharmacy and health care provider, Walgreens shouldn't be selling tobacco products, period,” Myers said in the statement. “They should have followed CVS's lead and ended tobacco sales long ago. Tobacco 21 is quickly becoming the law around the country due to the actions of states and cities, so Walgreens' announcement is simply a recognition of this growing trend.”
Myers added Walgreens should recognize the “fundamental conflict” between being a pharmacy and selling tobacco products with the use of these products considered the top reason for preventable deaths.
The decision to raise the age to 21 comes at a time where state houses are introducing and passing legislation to make the legal age to purchase tobacco 21. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, there are 12 states with laws on the books that bar anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing tobacco products. Those states are Hawaii, California, New Jersey, Oregon, Maine, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Illinois, Virginia, Delaware, Washington and Utah.
Scott Schlesinger, the founding attorney of Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, said the idea of tobacco 21 laws could be one of the most significant public health moves the country has made. But many of these laws are without teeth, he said, and punish the buyer over the seller of the tobacco products.
“Tobacco 21 is critically important,” Schlesinger said. “Especially when it applies to all nicotine devices. It has to be worded in such a way that there are enforcement provisions.”
The idea behind tobacco 21 laws is that when those who are 18 are allowed to purchase tobacco products, they will share them with and buy them for their younger peers. Those who are 21 are less likely to hang around teenagers, Schlesinger explained. He said studies have shown that when someone who waits until they are 21 to smoke a cigarette are much less likely to become addicted to nicotine.
Companies like Juul, Altria and Philip Morris have supported the tobacco 21 bills across the country. However, Bryan Haynes, a partner at Troutman Sanders in Washington, D.C., said the industry is not totally aligned on the tobacco 21 laws.
“One segment of the industry, those who support it, might say it's a good faith gesture to address the issue of youth tobacco consumption,” Haynes said. “The opposite side of the industry would argue that it really isn't a solution and the solution is to more aggressively enforce laws on the books.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute read'Be Comfortable Being Uncomfortable': Pearls of Wisdom From 2024 GC Q&As
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Fatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250