Search

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 21

“well you know you’ve got to figure out when did the ordinance pass and when did these people
become 18”. But the way it’s worded it makes it very clear. So just to remind you in New Hampshire,
if you are 21 you get a Driver's License that is horizontal. If you are under 21 the Driver's License is
vertical. So this was designed for liquor, for alcohol so that store clerks can know right away whether
someone is 21 or not.

The same would apply here, store clerks would be able to recognize whether someone is 21 or not, if
they are under 21 then they can look and see were they born before June 30", 2001 or not. It’s a
simple matter. The other amendment is to in recognition of something that Alderman Gathright spoke
to me about and that was her concern that this could be used unfairly to minorities, that it would be an
excuse for the Police to get the young people involved and subjecting them to citations, to fines which
they may not be able to afford and it would discriminatory against them. So | added something that is
in the current State Law and that someone under 21 instead of paying a fine, they can be required, as
an alternative, to participate in an education program regarding tobacco products, e-cigarettes or liquid
nicotine or a program for the cessation of the use of tobacco products, e-cigarettes or liquid nicotine or
the completion of community service as an alternative to the fines. So this was an attempt at
accommodating her concern to allow rather than having to pay a fine, you know, there were some
alternatives here that don’t involve the paying of money.

So | would recommend that we adopt this amended version. The arguments that I’ve heard and | don’t
deny that everybody is speaking with the best of intentions and speaking what they truly believe. But
when people talk about how we shouldn't do this just in Nashua that we should seek a statewide
solution, | agree | think it would be better if the state raised the age to 21. But the State hasn’t and at
the Committee meeting, not all of you were there, but at the Committee meeting | told you that | ran
into Donna Soucy, the President of the Senate who is on the Senate Commerce Committee that
considered a Senate Bill to raise the age to 21. | had testified in favor of that and that Committee
decided to retain it in Committee, they didn’t send it to the Senate Floor. | asked her why they had
done that and she told me because the law currently allows cities and towns to do this, and that some
had done it, Dover, Keene, Newmarket, that they were interested in seeing whether other cities and
towns would do this; whether there was support for raising the age to 21. So they are waiting for us,
they are waiting for us to see what we do. | think that if we adopted this it would encourage them to
enact a Statewide solution.

The other argument that I’ve heard and people have very sincerely said to me that just doing this in
Nashua isn’t going to do anything because people can just go to Hudson and buy it. And that’s true;
but just even though people can do, even though people could go to a different town and purchase this
product, a lot of them won’t. And where this has been enacted in other parts of the country and not
only States, we are now up to 13 States that have adopted this Statewide. Vermont is about to do it; it
will be 14 soon. Maine has done it; Massachusetts has done it. Most of those States started with a
City or a Town in the State doing it. There are | think it over 250 communities across the country who
have adopted and have raised the age to 21 just in their town. And wherever it has been done, it has
had the effect of reducing tobacco use among, not only young people, but of everyone.

If the young people don’t start, if it is more difficult for them to obtain it and they don’t start then they
are probably not going to pick it up later in life. They are probably never going to become addicted.
So the town of Needham, you’ve heard me say this before was the first town to do it. When they
enacted this, all of the towns around them, you could still purchase it at 18. But when they did it, they
were able to reduce the use of tobacco at Needham High School by 47% and since then, that was 14
years ago that they did it, they just issued a report showing that the numbers of people who smoke in
Needham are much less than the rest of Massachusetts. The hospitalizations due to lung cancer are
much less than the rest of Massachusetts; the deaths due to lung cancer are much less than the rest
of Massachusetts; complications from women smoking during pregnancy is much less than the rest of
Massachusetts.

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 22

So | appreciate when people doubt that this is going to work, you don’t have to believe me, look at the
research, look at the evidence in the rest of the country where this has been done and it has worked.
The other testimony that we’ve heard about people who are 18 are adults and ought to be able to
make their own choices. You know | understand that Libertarian argument that people ought to be
able to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. But the truth is that
smoking does hurt other people, second-hand smoke hurts other people. The vaping, the aerosol from
vaping hurts other people; the people who smoke you’ve heard the statistics about how much that
costs, you know, it’s like $729 million dollars in NH for treating people with smoke-related diseases.
And we are all paying for that, not just the person who is sick, but we pay for it in higher insurance
premiums, because insurance companies have to get money from all of us in order to pay for the
people who they are treating for smoking-related diseases but also Medicaid, directly our tax money.

Our tax money pays for Veterans who unfortunately went to serve our country, risked their lives and
came away from it with a tobacco addiction. And my office is right next to the Dalianis House and |
see these poor guys out there smoking, some of them are on scooters with oxygen tanks. And they
are still smoking because of this addiction. And again | emphasize, people who smoke are not bad
people. They are people who have obtained this addiction and a lot of them will tell you, they want to
quit, they’ve tried to quit and they can’t quit. So if we can stop people from getting addicted in the first
place, | think we are doing them a favor. We are not doing a favor to people who are 18, 19 and 20 by
allowing them to become addicted. We did it for alcohol.

When New Hampshire raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 there was an over 90% reduction in
alcohol related deaths from that age group. So raising the age works and | hope that my fellow
Aldermen will support number one — amending this ordinance and then if its amended, hopefully
passing it.

Alderman Clemons
Just a simple request please roll call.
Alderman Klee

| actually am quite stunned to see this here because if | am not mistaken when this was brought
forward to the Personnel Committee there was only one person that voted for that and the rest of the
Committee voted against it. It was actually, the entire bill was defeated in the Committee, and | think it
was Alderman Clemons who said did all the hard work and in all fairness to all of us Aldermen that we
would bring it forward to it and you pretty much so said that that was the right thing. And | agreed with
it; | think it should have come forward. | think that if this does pass you probably will get this bill. | am
still very much against it; | don’t deny any of the science. | think the science is probably very, very
accurate. You continue to bring up the Needham statistics; well I'd like to remind everybody that the
median income in Needham is much higher. The education in Needham in much higher, the
population in Needham is about half of that of Nashua. Also some of the statistics that were prior to
this, Needham’s use of tobacco was already on the decline. So that’s a little thing that we need to add
to it and so on.

You mentioned about the licenses, the vertical / horizontal kind of license. | am not going to argue with
that but the truth is then the police officers do have to sit there with a calendar to say ok were they
born before this and that and | think that is probably what the officer was discussing. When Vermont
does pass it we will be surrounded by states who are no longer selling this which is why | think that
New Hampshire has to step us. And perhaps Senator Soucy was making the comment about that she
wanted to see what was going to happen out in the towns and the cities. | still think that the State
needs to take the responsibility and whether people want to agree with me or not, that’s just my feeling
and so on.

As far as raising the alcohol level, Nashua didn’t do it, Keene didn’t do it, Newmarket didn’t do it, Dover
didn’t do it; New Hampshire did it. And actually we were kind of forced to it, much like Massachusetts

Pennichuck Corporation and Subsidiaries
Audited Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2015 and 2014

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 23
and so on and that was because we were going to be losing highway funding. | agree with it, | agree
with raising the tobacco age to 21. | don’t agree with it here in Nashua. | think I’ve said this over and
over again so I'll stop here, thank you.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

First of all | want to clarify what | did say when | testified before in regards to this and what | did say is
that we have received a lot of data in regards to this and | believe it was Ms. Valuk tonight that actually
said some of the things that | talked about. | said that the statistics showed that most of the people
that use the vapor and the nicotine were economically deprived. | also said that they were also of
color, alright? Those are the two things. The other things that | did say about this is that those kids
that were being arrested were low income, or of color. Now this is statistic-wise, because one of the
things that we have here is the $50.00 and the $100.00 alright? And the Police said that the only way
that they could actually enforce this is by putting the money there, otherwise they are arrested. We
have worked very hard in New Hampshire to keep our young people out of the system and | see this
as just another way of putting them back. | have been working at this for a very long time with all the
different groups that work with young people. And | feel that now you are saying “Well here we go
again”. This is another way, you’re back again. So this is the main reason why | was against the bill.

The other piece of that is statistics that | didn’t hear until tonight was 39.9% of the children are
purchasing it themselves. So in my opinion we should be looking at the establishments, educating our
children more, there are other ways | think we could have done that besides this. And | am going to
leave it at that because I’ve talked about it enough and I’ve heard enough from a lot of people and
that’s my take on that.

Alderman Lopez

| think if we serve people in a lower economic bracket then Needham and people who have more
diverse backgrounds then we have just as much right and responsibility as Aldermen to represent
them in a way that accurately represents their best interests given the data and the information that we
have. So | was opposed to this in the Committee meeting, the amendment, because | felt that we
wouldn’t be doing the best job that we could with it by removing the possession and creating a
scenario as was described in Public Comment where someone could buy in Hudson and just possess
it in Nashua, even if they couldn’t purchase it in Nashua. However, it was pointed out to me in the
intermediate week by a constituent that if the State does do its job and does move this forward then
that’s a mute point because you won't be able to buy it anywhere in New Hampshire. You also
wouldn’t be able to buy it in Maine; people wouldn’t be coming up from Massachusetts to buy it here.
So that objection which was the primary piece that | objected to in the amendment, if | put a little bit of
faith in the State, then | don’t have that objection. I’m not 100% sold on the State doing it, because we
do have a record of waiting until the last minute to do everything as was described with the alcohol.
We know 21 at this point is a norm that everyone can tolerate and that it does make a difference in the
lives of people who are younger. Sure there are always underage parties but they are not going to the
bar and they are not picking them up in stores; it does make a difference.

At the Federal Level, the Federal Minimum Wage is still $7.25 like I’m not going to, | don’t see them
quickly moving on anything. | do see more and more States taking over, so | think it may end up being
a State-run initiative but every movement has to start with somebody who steps forward and says “I
can’t do everything but | can do something” and being willing to do what they can do. | think the
amendment does remove or at least provides an alternative to the fines in the form of the smoking
cessation class. The grandfathering, again, in my opinion if we can do something we should do it. If
we are going to enforce or create the ordinance we should just go all in and say 21 and make it very
clear. But again the grandfathering doesn’t matter if the State takes the initiative and moves forward
with this. So | would support either bill.

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 24
Alderman O’Brien

Thank you. | am not going to support the bill, I’m not going to support the amendment. The
constitution is quite clear, it says 18. And if you want the State to do it | would support the State, not
the community of Nashua to have Nashua come to effect. | look at it if a 16 year old was smoking or
drinking and goes home with smoke on their breath or alcohol on their breath, can imagine the parents
would be quite upset. And | think if a 19 year old went home with alcohol the parents would be equally
still upset and 20 and up to the age of 21. But at 18 the Federal Law says that they can go home with
tobacco on their breath. So therefore the Libertarian side of me, I’m glad you mentioned it, listen | also
know being part of the State Legislature, there’s 400 wise people up there. And | think they are quite
capable to make a decision to discuss a bill and making that decision | think we can all abide by what
the State has to do. | am not here as an Alderman to poke the nose or the eye or the butt of the State
trying to make a decision. They are quite capable of making the decision on their own.

Yet looking at this amendment and to my State Rep friends will tell you, we live on words such as
‘shall’ and ‘may’. And | look at Section D and any person violating the provision of this section shall be
subject to fine of up to $50.00 for first offense and up to $100.00 for a second subsequent offense.
Now ‘shall’ to me, if | was going to put ‘shall’ to another word, would be ‘will’. You will be charged. So
we are going to charge the youth for this yet in looking at E and if | may read it again, any person
violating provisions of this section who are under the age of 21 may be required to participate in an
education program regarding tobacco products, e-cigarettes, liquid nicotine, a program for cessation
and the use of tobacco products, e-cigarettes, liquid nicotine or the completion of community service
as an alternative to the fines provided by Paragraph D. Well it seems in paragraph D you are going to
get the fine. Not if, not what not even if you want to go to a cessation program. And you don’t have to
go to the cessation program because it says “you may” which another word for ‘may’ maybe or | might.
So it’s a good attempt, | respect it, but the verbiage and | think my fellow State Reps who handle these
issues all the time, know exactly what we are talking about, we get slammed up in Concord when we
had the may and the shall debate and see others are kind of shaking their head, yet it’s right here in an
ordinance that’s before us now. Thank you.

Alderman Tencza

So just to follow up with Alderman O’Brien’s final point the criminal code is full of sections that say
“shall be fined” which this section doesn’t say that the fine couldn’t be suspended or couldn’t be
substituted for community service so even if it’s there it doesn’t mean that somebody would have to
necessarily pay that fine as a result of a violation of this ordinance. It took me a long time to make a
decision on where | would come down on this ordinance and | think | may have been the person who
spoke with Alderman Jette about enforcement as a primary offense for someone who the Police may
think is under the age of 21 smoking a cigarette in their car.

Because of the way this amendment is drafted, | do not have any concerns with that any longer
because | think it takes the burden off of the possession and puts it on people who are selling or
distributing tobacco. | think it is more of a balance. | respect all the folks who have a lot of experience
up in Concord and the work that goes on there; | think Concord is looking to the cities and the
municipalities to see what we do about this. And as a Public Health, as a Public Safety measure, |
think this is a good start moving forward; it’s not going to cure all the issues we have with young
people using tobacco and getting hooked on tobacco products but it is a step in the right direction.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Ok the word possession was taken out but what was the other word, distribution. How many young
people consistently give their cigarettes to their friends | mean you know they pass them around like
them around like are nothing, so that’s called distribution because they have actually given it to their
friends, ok? So we might have taken possession out and made it a little less worrisome for the young

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 25

people but the fact that if they distribute it to their friend or anyone they are still going to have the same
issue that they had, had they had possession.

Alderman Schmidt

Thank you Madam President. Let me start by saying | absolutely hate smoking. At 14 | walked into
the girl’s room at the skating rink and that was it, | was stuck for 30 years. | can’t walk by a smoker on
a sidewalk without gagging, without choking, it is asthma at this point, I’m very lucky that’s all it is. If
this could stop children from smoking | think that would be absolutely stunning. However, | do not
want to see children punished for this. | do not want to see that; that is the wrong way to go about this.
Sellers should be punished if they are going to be selling to underage, there’s no question in mind
there should even be those underage kids that go into your shops and try to trap you and you should
be punished severely for that because you can’t start kids on tobacco and expect them to wind up
living in the end. So that would have to come out for me. | certainly can’t vote for this in any way. |
also think that it’s very unfair to our local businesses. | don’t like that you sell cigarettes, but | think it’s
unfair because | think the people who are 22 are going to go out as well, out of the City.

The other thing that is if we do this up at the State, we can actually increase the tax on this, we can
increase the tax and that money can go to the schools to do presentations that will help kids
understand why smoking is bad. Bad, bad, bad. | can’t support this. Thank you.

Alderman Lopez

To some points that were made earlier | just want to point out that it already is a crime for someone
who is 18 to distribute to someone who is not 18. And the argument that keeps coming up in public
comment and in the previous committee meeting was that the schools should be fining kids. | don’t
entirely agree with that because | feel like if you’re in school you are supposed to be there for
education. The problem needs to be interdicted, things need to be confiscated, but | am in agreement
with Alderman Gathright that fining children is not exactly going to be effective, it’s probably just going
to trickle up to their parents. So those are already on the field; the difference is that this was
precipitated by the statistical evidence that 18 and 19 year olds are the easiest way for kids who are
14, 15, and 16 to get cigarettes or you know tobacco products. They can still e-cigarettes, they can
still get vape products, depending on how they buy them and where because that legislation hasn’t
come in yet. So | think that’s a little bit of a red herring when it comes to the study that they can still
purchase themselves legally, this would close that too and it would make sure that they can’t purchase
at least e-cigarettes if tobacco products are associated with them.

| would also just make a point, it was brought up in public comment that tobacco can be put in the e-
juice, yeah, so can weed, doesn’t mean you shouldn't try to stop them.

Alderman Dowd

Just a couple quick things. One it surprises me that not a single State Rep in this Chamber will
support this bill yet nothing is being done in Concord. The head of the Senate has said they are
waiting to see what the cities do. My way of thinking is that it will never get passed, because we’ve got
a sample of 100% here saying that they don’t agree with it; they’ll pass it at the State level but they are
not.

The other thing is last night on a completely separate decision there was a Rep from Hudson that said
“we are just waiting for Nashua to take action on this other event”. So Hudson, Hollis and Brookline
and all the cities are probably waiting to see what Nashua does and will do the same thing and maybe
then the State will act. There are numerous States in the Country that have already done this
including several surrounding us. At the National level they are looking to pass this law. If we don’t
take action | don’t see any action being taken anywhere and | think we need to move the needle.

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 26
Alderman Klee

Thank you again. | just wanted to make one more comment that | had forgotten about and that was
the ability for the mailing and being able to mail order tobacco products or vape products or so on.
And right now an 18 year old Nashua resident still has the ability to do that. Just like they had the
ability as we keep talking about going to another surrounding town. | just wanted to remind everybody
about that that even if they have to get in a car and drive somewhere, they can mail order it. And
these days it’s just really easy to just do it on your phone.

Alderman Gathright

| just wanted to say that I’m not sure about the Senator’s statement but she is in the Senate and the
people that sit here, we are in the House and we don’t always think the same way. So to make a
statement like that, personally | am offended with the statement.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Yes thank you. | find this whole discussion about what we are doing in Concord versus what we are
doing here very interesting especially in light of the fact that our neighbor State Vermont, the House
and Senate has passed legislation that they expect their Governor will sign. So once again, we are
going to find ourselves in New England as the hole in the doughnut. And those of you have been here
for awhile know | am referring to Rail. And when the State decided to do something we sitting around
this horseshoe thought was not in the best interest of Nashua and the residents of Nashua; we
decided to take action. And so once again, when Governor Scott signs the legislation in Vermont we
will again become the hole in the doughnut. And | think each of us has to say do we wait for Concord
and as Alderman Dowd was talking saying “we don’t know if Concord will ever pass it”. Alderman
O’Brien was nodding his head in agreement, we don’t know if Concord will ever pass it. So | guess we
have heard from everyone that they support it except for this and they support it except for that. Yet |
really believe Alderman Jette and Alderman Clemons with some conversations with folks have done a
great job of trying to put together something that will address the concerns of everyone around this
horseshoe. So | don’t know if there are some changes of wording some people would like to see and
they would like to make those amendments now and make those suggestions now or if we are just
going to vote on it. But again | guess my thought is if it doesn’t happen in Concord but we think it’s
good for Nashua, then that’s what we need to do. Because sitting around this horseshoe we are
sitting here representing the City of Nashua. Thank you.

President Wilshire
Anyone else?

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Move the question, roll call vote please.
President Wilshire
The motion before us is for final passage, no I’m sorry, is for the amendment of Ordinance 19-037.

Yea: Alderman Dowd, Alderman Lopez, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Jette, 7
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Teneza, Alderman Clemons

Nay: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Klee,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Wilshire 6

MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 27

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. So I’m glad that we could come up with a compromise on this. The reason that | brought
this forward was because | originally said that | would never vote to take away somebody’s rights who
has an existing right. So in other words if you are 18 and you currently have the ability to purchase
tobacco or whatever, this doesn’t take that away. Also, in addition to that it gets rid of the fines. What
| didn’t realize until this evening was the, and | want to thank Alderman Harriott-Gathright for this was
the distribute, provide or give part of it. And that was clearly an oversight on my part because | would
have never endorsed something that if kids pass around a cigarette to one another, they could be fined
$50.00 to $100.00. So | don’t know how my colleagues feel about this but | can’t support this with that
in there.

As | am thinking about these amendments, you know, | brought these forward because | honestly
believed that this legislation was going to pass and it was going to hurt people. And | am glad to have
brought forward a compromise that a good portion of this Board can support. But having said that,
somebody also brought up to me the other day, well would a doctor in Nashua be able to prescribe
Chantix? Or would they be able to, would a person who is trying to quit smoking be able to buy
Nicorette Gum? | don’t know. | don’t know the answer to that. This is something that has really really
gotten to me, and while we worked very hard on the amendments, | don’t know, there are too many ...
for a City to do something like this, there are too many unintended consequences to really think about.
| don’t think we’ve vetted them, | don’t think we know what they all are. | don’t know what I’m going to
do.

Alderman Lopez

Can | ask Attorney Bolton if there is any legal definition of distribute or if that does include anything
from selling commercially or distributing.

Attorney Bolton

It means just what you think it means if you give this to someone else, with or without compensation,
you’ve distributed.

Alderman Lopez

| guess I'd like to propose that we amend it to replace the words, to phrase distribute with commercial
sales of.

Attorney Bolton

If | can make a suggestion why don’t you just say you want to delete the words “distribute, provide or
give” because | think you are going to have the same problem with provide and give that you have with
distribute. So then that section will say “no person or businesses shall sell a tobacco product etc”. So
you want to, | believe you want to eliminate the words “distribute, provide or give”.

President Wilshire
What paragraph is that in?

Attorney Bolton
That’s “B” of 304-2.

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 28

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

To Attorney Bolton, that same paragraph, if we inserted “no person 21 or older or business”.

Attorney Bolton

You could do that.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

And that would get rid of ....

Attorney Bolton

That would get rid of the liability for one 16 year old providing it to another 16 year old.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Or an 18 year old providing it to a 15 year old.
President Wilshire

So are you making that an amendment.

Alderman Lopez

May | ask a question first? Would that contradict any existing State Law about having tobacco on
school property or anything like that?

Attorney Bolton

| don’t think so but | don’t know every single State Law there is. But it’s quite clear that the current
State Law gives municipalities to have stricter rules governing the sale and distribution of nicotine
products. So | would say that the suggestion by Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja is unlikely to contradict any
existing State Law.

Alderwoman Kelly

In terms of the amendment that was just brought up, part of this legislation was talking about making
sure that there wasn’t access for people who are not legal and shouldn’t have it. If we take out “sell,
distribute, or provide” that would still allow people to then pass it on. | know that someone in the
chamber was talking about 61.5% of high schoolers get it from someone who is legal other than a
parent. So | worries that this just cuts it off at its knees even more so than it already has already.

Alderman Klee

Yes | think it’s a gallant effort for everybody to try to get this passed with the minimum pain to the youth
of the City but with each one you are doing, | have been hearing over and over again that it’s the 18
year olds that are getting it to the 16 year olds and it’s this and that and so on and in the school. Every
change that you make you are just watering it down more and more so | have to ask what the sincerity
of this is, other than just to get it passed. | don’t know, enough said, | am sorry.

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 29
Alderman Jette

The purpose of doing this is to raise the age from 18 to 21. The State Law currently prohibits “no
person shall sell, give or furnish or cause or allow or procure to be sold, given or furnished tobacco
products, e-cigarettes or liquid nicotine to a minor’. Ok? So the State Law already prohibits a 16 year
old giving it to another 16 year old you know? So it’s already there, | mean what this was trying to do
was raise the age to 21. You know if we said “no person over 21 shall sell, distribute” I’m fine with
that, but it would still be, | guess it would allow people who are 20 to give a cigarette to someone who
is 19 but they couldn’t give to someone under 18, | mean that’s the current State Law. So | have no
problem with the change, | just want to point out that the current law that we have, the amendment
doesn’t really, it doesn’t make it illegal, it is already illegal for someone to give cigarettes to somebody
under 18. So saying or changing our thing to say it only applies to people over 21, you know, would
eliminate the 20 year old giving it to the 18 year old, but they still couldn’t give it to the younger kids.
That’s already illegal and that’s State Law, we are not changing that.

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. So | proposed this change and some of it came from myself, some of it came from
Alderman Jette and some of it came from Alderman Laws who is not here. Sometimes on these
things, what I’ve learned in this because you are always learning something you know? | used to think
and I’ve run on before many campaigns in the past that compromise is a great thing and itis. But
there are some issues where, and this is one of them, and I’ve learned this where it is just not possible.
There’s just too many what ifs and what have you’s and different scenarios and | don’t want a, | mean,
you could either pass this as it is all or nothing or as Alderman Klee had pointed out, at what point are
we watering this down to just why are we, we are basically, all we are saying is that you are not going
to be able to sell to somebody who is under the age of 21 basically in the City of Nashua. And at that
point, well why? So you know so | proposed this and | put feelers out there in the community. Now
certainly we’ve been contacted as Aldermen by constituents, | have. I’ve gotten many phone calls, e-
mails, even got a couple letters of people writing to me on both sides of the issue. They want it, they
don’t want it, they don’t want the compromise, they like the compromise. | put a post out there on the
Nashua Civic Sounding Board just to kind of get a feeler as well for this compromise, and | have to say
that it was 3 to 1 against it. And | have to say that of all of my talking to everybody that I’ve talked to
about this, it’s 3 to 1 against doing this.

Now the answers vary as to the reasons why, they are almost universal on the other side. So on the
one, it’s definitely a health issue and that’s what is cited to me and also that is going to stop youth
smoking or at least make it harder and | get that, it probably would. On the other side of the 3 to 1,
there are various things that are said, one is it is unenforceable, it is going to hurt those in the lower
socioeconomic groups which we have tried to address here, it’s not worth the City’s time, it’s not worth
the Police time, it is State issue, it is a freedom issue, it’s a liberty issue. You know 18 year olds are
adults, if you can carry a gun at 18 you should be able to smoke a cigarette. I’ve heard everything.
Even despite and this was out there, this was me saying to the public this is what | can present, what
do you think and 3 to 1. It was no. And yet my gut still tells me that it is probably in the interest of
those that are our youth to do this because | think that there is value there in it so long as we are not
violating anybody’s rights who is already got that right.

However, after having this discussion this evening, after having this discussion with the community,
seeing the chaos that this legislation has created just here in this chamber alone, | can’t do it, | can’t
support it, | tried, | tried my best. But you know sometimes you listen to what your constituents have to
say and you let them make the decision and on this one, you know, I’ve done my best, I’ve thrown my
best out there. But you know | am going to let my constituents talk to me and for the ones who have
contacted me, it is 3 to 1 against this, so | am going to vote no.