Beaufort County commissioners back Tobacco-21 resolution; amendment on under-21 presence debated

Beaufort County commissioners voted to support a county resolution endorsing Tobacco-21 policies after a presentation from the county health department.

The health department’s public health educator, Anita Hernandez, told the board the measure aligns local practice with federal law and helps protect funding and youth health. “95 percent of tobacco users start before the age of 21,” Hernandez said. She told commissioners that North Carolina risks losing “about $5,000,000 in block grants” tied to tobacco prevention and treatment if the state does not align with recent federal requirements.

The resolution the board considered was presented as support for the federal-age-of-sale standard and for related measures the North Carolina Alliance of Health is pressing at the state level, including retailer licensing. Hernandez said the state’s lack of a uniform retailer licensing system impedes enforcement and tracking of sales to youth and that the resolution is intended to add local support for pending state legislation (House Bill 430, referenced by staff).

Commissioners discussed possible additions to the resolution. Commissioner Booth and others asked whether licensing would cover all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches; Hernandez replied the draft describes all nicotine and tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and smokeless forms. Commissioner Richardson proposed an amendment to the motion to also bar people under 21 from being present inside places where tobacco products are sold. Commissioners debated the scope and enforceability of that amendment, noting potential effects on grocery stores, drug stores and convenience retailing.

The board first voted to approve the resolution of support for Tobacco-21. The board then heard and debated Commissioner Richardson’s amendment that would prohibit persons under age 21 from being inside establishments that sell tobacco products. The transcript records the amendment being moved, seconded and put to a vote; commissioners discussed the breadth and practical enforcement of such a prohibition before the board voted on the amendment.

The health department and board members said the immediate purpose of the resolution is to signal local support for state action and to encourage a licensing system that would hold noncompliant retailers accountable. Hernandez said the county’s board of health already signed a supporting resolution on March 25, 2025.

The board did not include additional criminal penalties beyond the uniform guidance referenced in the packet; commissioners said further local policy changes could be proposed if the state law does not address enforcement or presence-in-establishment questions.

The board directed staff to include the resolution and recorded votes in the meeting minutes and to coordinate any drafting changes with county attorneys if members pursue local additions.

Ending: The county’s action is explicitly framed as a supportive resolution; implementation of licensing, enforcement and any limits on presence inside retailers would depend on subsequent state legislation and on separate local ordinances should the commission choose to pursue them.