The Needham, Massachusetts "Miracle", Debunked

Remember when Needham, Massachusetts made history in 2005 by being the first place in the USA to raise the age limit for tobacco to 21 in modern times?  And how the propoents of Tobacco 21 laws used them as an example of how successful such laws supposedly are at reducing teen smoking?  Well, a new article came out that thoroughly debunks that claim.  Scratch that, it debones, slices, dices, and juliennes it, and lays waste to its remains for good.

From 2006 to 2010 (the original study curiously did not include data before 2006), Needham did indeed see a faster drop in smoking rates among high school students compared to surrounding communities which kept the age limit at 18.  But from 2010 to 2012, the reverse was true: surrounding communities that kept it at 18 began to see faster declines in teen smoking rates than Needham.  This inconvenient fact was acknowledged buried in the original study (that went up to 2012) used to sing the praises of Tobacco 21, so it was not simply an oversight by the authors.  And according to the publicly available data that can be gleaned from schools in the surrounding communities, by 2014 the pattern reversed entirely, with the neighboring towns seeing larger net declines in teen smoking (59 to 77% drop) than Needham (40% drop) since 2006.  Hardly miraculous.  And by 2016, we see that some of these other towns raised the tobacco age limit to 21, but without seeing any further decrease in teen smoking (in fact, they saw a slight increase from 2014 to 2016).  If that's "success", we'd really hate to see what failure looks like.

So what explains the short-term success in the first few years in Needham?  Well, it could simply be have been a real but short-lived (and hollow) effect of the policy, just as Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) saw with the 21 drinking age versus traffic fatalities in the 1980s, with the effect being fairly small, dissipating after the first year or two before rebounding later, and further limited to the early-adopting states only (while in the later-adopting, coerced states, it actually had a perverse effect, or at best no effect).  But Needham also increased their enforcement on vendors dramatically, and also had at least some other tobacco laws that surrounding communities lacked.  And the percentage of smokers under 18 who bought their own cigarettes from stores also declined in Needham but not in the other neighboring towns.

Thus, it is very likely that the early decline in teen smoking would have been just as large if not larger had they simply kept the age limit at 18 but stepped up enforcement all the same, ceteris paribus.

Indeed, one should note that Woodridge, Illinois saw a similarly large drop in teen smoking in an even shorter timeframe (just two years) from 1989 to 1991 while keeping the smoking age at 18.  Leominster, MA also saw a drop almost as large from 1989 to 1991 as well.  And NYC, who raised their age limit from 18 to 21 (with no grandfather clause) in 2014, did NOT see teen smoking rates drop any faster than in the nation as a whole from 2013 to 2015.  Thus, the most parsimonious explanation is that Needham's (short) success story was primarily (if not entirely) due to increased vendor enforcement interacting with secular trends, and not the raising of the age limit itself.  In any case, it turned out to be a promise built on sand all along, if not a total statistical mirage.

Tobacco 21 laws, just like the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age, clearly belong on the trash heap of history.  And this is the final nail in the coffin.