Edina is off the mark in raising tobacco-purchase age from 18 to 21

The Edina City Council's action to support an age 21 law for tobacco purchases ("Edina on smart track to smoking age of 21," editorial, April 24; "Edina raises tobacco age to 21," May 3) is unnecessary. It ignores contributions retailers have made in preventing underage youth from obtaining tobacco. It overlooks the significant reduction in tobacco use by minors in the absence of an age 21 law. Also, it infringes on the rights of adults who are old enough to vote, join the military, obtain medical treatments and get married.

The Star Tribune asserts the Edina City Council is a "target of those who bring all the usual criticisms." Since when does having a different opinion — based on years of retailers responsibly selling tobacco — mean that retailers are somehow insensitive to youth access to tobacco?

As leaders of trade associations that represent thousands of Minnesota retailers, we rely on facts. Our member stores are law-abiding retailers. We don't sell tobacco to minors. Moreover, we know that raising the legal age to purchase and use tobacco products is a wrong approach that will do more harm than good.

For the past two years, Edina's retailers posted a perfect record in compliance checks conducted by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Edina's retailers don't sell to underage teenagers trying to purchase tobacco.

Some underage youth in Edina do get tobacco, but not from retailers. In fact, a major Food and Drug Administration study found 86 percent of underage youth obtain cigarettes from social sources — older friends or siblings, and even strangers or parents. Despite this evidence, no government body — nor the advocates who lobby to pass ordinances that hurt local retailers — have done anything to solve the social sources problem.

Edina and the Star Tribune are too quick to declare that simply raising the legal age to 21 will make a difference in underage youth tobacco use. They cite a study based on a 10-year-old Needham, Mass., ordinance that found high school student smoking declined 50 percent after the city raised the legal age to 21.

However, a recent Minnesota Study Survey, in 2016, shows that smoking among ninth-graders has dropped 80 percent and among 11th-graders by 75 percent — without age 21 ordinances and far more than in Needham. Moreover, the age 21 idea is so new, no long-term study has been conducted to prove or disprove this "theory" that the anti-business interests are pushing. Elected officials ought to have been cautious in enacting restrictions that hurt local businesses and jobs.

Retailers understand that tobacco causes health-related issues, but society is addressing this at state and federal levels. Hurting businesses at the local level, and taking away the rights of 18-, 19- and 20-year-old adults, is not the answer.

Logically, if supporters of this measure truly believe these adults do not have the mental capacity to decide for themselves, then Edina and the Star Tribune should push for a legal age of 21 for young men and women to vote, enlist in the military, take out loans for a college education, make their own decisions about medical treatments or get married.

Ironically, the Edina ordinance contains a serious contradiction. While it prohibits retailers from selling tobacco to anyone under 21, and prevents 18-, 19- and 20-year-old adults from buying tobacco, the ordinance allows these same young adults to possess and use tobacco products. If this ordinance is about young adults — and not about hurting small businesses — then why not outlaw possession and use? Is doing so too much like Prohibition and Big Brother?

Why not support policies that encourage young adults to act responsibly — instead of enacting more laws dictating what products adults cannot purchase and what products local retailers cannot sell?