Boston's Pharmacy Cigarette Ban and Tobacco Marketing Impact
This paper examines the February 2009 ordinance passed by the Boston Public Health Commission banning cigarette sales in pharmacies. It surveys the ban's immediate effects on tobacco shelf displays, compliance by major chains CVS and Walgreens, and the financial stakes involved given that pharmacies account for approximately 4% of total tobacco sales. A stakeholder analysis considers the positions of tobacco companies, the City of Boston, consumers, and pharmacies. The paper then assesses how the ban — along with parallel restrictions on college campuses — reshapes tobacco company marketing strategies, particularly point-of-purchase advertising and access to young consumers, and concludes with projections for how tobacco companies must adapt their distribution and promotional approaches.
- Introduction: Boston's Pharmacy Smoking Ban: Boston 2009 ordinance banning pharmacy cigarette sales
- Effect on Tobacco Sales: Compliance, shelf changes, and financial impact
- Stakeholder Analysis: City, pharmacies, consumers, and tobacco companies assessed
- Tobacco Marketing Challenges: Point-of-purchase and youth marketing restrictions
- Conclusions: Long-term distribution and marketing strategy implications
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in concrete financial data (the $65 billion tobacco market, the 4% pharmacy share) to give the policy stakes real weight.
- Uses a structured stakeholder analysis to systematically examine the ban from multiple perspectives — pharmacies, the city, consumers, and tobacco companies — rather than treating it as a one-dimensional public health story.
- Connects the specific ordinance to a broader regulatory trend (San Francisco, Canadian provinces, college campus bans), situating the Boston case within a wider policy pattern.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied stakeholder analysis as an analytical framework. By identifying each affected party, specifying their interests, and assessing the relative power each holds, the author moves beyond simple description to evaluate whose concerns drive the policy and who bears the costs — a technique central to business and public policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a contextual introduction establishing the ordinance, then moves to empirical details about immediate compliance and sales impact. The stakeholder analysis section forms the argumentative core. The paper then pivots to a marketing-strategy lens, examining point-of-purchase advertising, brand communication, and youth-access restrictions. A brief conclusion synthesizes the long-term implications for tobacco company strategy. Five cited sources support the claims throughout.
Introduction: Boston's Pharmacy Smoking Ban
On February 9, 2009, a new ordinance went into effect in the city of Boston, banning cigarette sales in pharmacies. The ordinance was passed by the Boston Public Health Commission and covers only the city of Boston, not outlying cities. The sale ban is another step in a multi-part program to eradicate smoking within the city. Related measures have included bans on smoking in bars (with an exception for cigar bars), bans on the sale of cigarettes on college campuses, and a ban on the sale of rolling papers anywhere in the city.
Effect on Tobacco Sales
The regulation singles out pharmacies for the ban under the theory that pharmacies represent part of the health care system and therefore should not sell a product that damages people's health. Pharmacies account for approximately 4% of total sales of tobacco products (Magee, 2008). This ban is opposed by the vast majority of pharmacists. However, the major corporations that run the pharmacies — CVS and Walgreens — generate substantial profit from cigarette sales. The total tobacco market is estimated at $65 billion, meaning the pharmacy share amounts to roughly $2.6 billion. The city of Boston therefore determined that the ban needed to be imposed from the regulatory level.
A survey of Boston pharmacies on the day the ban went into effect revealed that all had removed their tobacco products. CVS stores surveyed had replaced their tobacco shelves with Nicorette and other products designed to help customers break their tobacco addictions. At Walgreens, the shelving formerly used for tobacco products simply sat empty. CVS stores also posted signs alerting customers to the new regulations, both to inform the public and to avoid customer complaints (Smith, 2009).
Enforcement of the regulations began immediately, and thus far all pharmacies have been compliant. The two major chains dominate the pharmacy industry in the city, and both agreed from the outset that they would comply. CVS, in fact, had considered halting tobacco sales around the same time that Target ceased tobacco sales in 1996 (Magee, 2008).
Stakeholder Analysis
There are several major stakeholders affected by the Boston ban: the tobacco companies, the City of Boston, consumers, and the pharmacies themselves. The pharmacies have little control in this situation. They are losing a significant component of their sales, and while they have been required to comply, they lose a key product with little opportunity to replace that revenue directly. When San Francisco implemented a similar ban the previous year, Walgreens joined Philip Morris in a lawsuit against the city, contending that they were being discriminated against and that other types of businesses were being unfairly favored (Gebhart, 2008). The pharmacies also suffer an indirect loss: cigarettes are a draw that brings customers into stores, where those customers also purchase other products. The ban removes that traffic-generating function as well (Ibid.).
The City of Boston's primary objective is to advance its campaign against tobacco products. The city approved the new rules unanimously, signaling strong conviction among its leadership. Boston followed the lead of San Francisco, which banned cigarette sales in pharmacies the prior year, as well as similar bans enacted in several Canadian provinces (Ibid.). Although it has not been explicitly stated by Boston officials, it is known that in San Francisco the pharmacy ban is regarded as a precursor to a much wider ban on cigarette sales in the future (Ibid.). Boston's stated rationale — promoting health and safety — indicates that further legislation is likely (Hirschkorn & Pinkston, 2009).
For consumers, the law amounts to little more than an inconvenience. A researcher at a local school of public health indicated that "this policy is not going to save any lives" (Drug Topics, 2009). With only 4% of tobacco sales occurring at pharmacies, consumers can reasonably be expected to take their business elsewhere — including to pharmacies located outside city limits.
For tobacco companies, the stakes are considerably higher. Philip Morris was a co-party in the lawsuit that Walgreens filed against San Francisco. Both companies launched that legal challenge in response to what they viewed as a direct threat to their businesses. Tobacco companies have, over the past several years, faced mounting restrictions on their marketing efforts, and the ban on sales in pharmacies represents yet another such constraint.
Works Cited
Smith, Stephen. "Cigarettes Gone from Pharmacy Shelves in Boston." Boston Globe, 9 Feb. 2009.
Hirschkorn, Phil, and Randall Pinkston. "Boston Bans Cigarette Sales in Drug Stores." CBS News, 8 Feb. 2009.
"Pharmacy Tobacco Sales Banned in Boston." Drug Topics, 2009.
Magee, Mike. "Tobacco Sales at Pharmacies?" Health Commentary, 2008.
Gebhart, Fred. "Tobacco Sales Ban Hits San Francisco Retail Pharmacies the Hardest." Drug Topics, 2008.
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
24-Hour Pass
Does not renew
Get 24-Hour PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 1 during the 24-Hour Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.