MASSACHUSETTS IS considering a statewide “generational” ban on cigarettes and other nicotine products – just like Brookline and a number of other Bay State towns. The idea is that anyone born January 1, 2006, or later will not be permitted to buy these products. Eventually, as the population ages, that means that 80 years from now, only centenarians will still be puffing away. 

But why stop there? Alcohol is a killer too: It’s responsible for about 178,000 deaths each year — and now some researchers are saying there’s no such thing as a safe amount. So while the Legislature is busy writing up its nicotine ban, why not add in alcohol?

Sure, we tried this in 1920 and, in one stroke, we basically created organized crime. But this “generational” approach is much more clever. Only those who are now 19 or so would be prohibited from buying booze. The rest of us can go on enjoying our martinis even while having the satisfaction of knowing that the next generation will no longer be subject to its ills. 

In fact, as I think about it, there are lots of things people do that are dangerous.

Take skiing. About 600,000 skiers and snowboarders are injured annually in the US. And for what benefit? They all take chairlifts to the top of a mountain (a waste of energy!), then slide down a trail of often artificial snow (another waste of energy!), only to repeat the process ad nauseum until they are exhausted. Swimming is another ridiculous pastime: 4,000 drowning deaths each year! And then there’s the automobile, which kills more than 42,000 annually. 

Let’s ban them all. 

As with nicotine, we’ll simply say that those born after 2005 will no longer be allowed to ski, swim, or drive a car. Of course, over time that means that eventually no one will be allowed to ski, swim, or drive a car. Think of the lives saved! The injuries avoided! And for so little cost.  

Skiing is silly anyway, swimming is unneeded now that we have showers, and those in cars can just use bicycles (although we may need to ban those as well: 1,000 bicyclists in the US die each year and another 130,000 are injured).  

And while we’re at it: Each year there are more than 20 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. And, despite our best efforts, the rates are increasing. The solution? Ban sex! Or at least, ban sex for the kids. As they grow older, those youngsters will never know what they’re missing – and best of all, they will be safe and STD-free.  

I can hear your objection: Isn’t sex necessary for the propagation of the species? At one time, yes. But now? We’ve got IVF! No need to risk your life while making a baby. Science, ever our friend, has made that messy (and disease-ridden!) coupling up unnecessary. 

My point is a simple one. Many of the things adults choose to do are dangerous. There was once a time when we said, “Well, it’s risky, but it’s your decision.” But Brookline – and perhaps soon Massachusetts – is leading the way in saying, “No, no, no! It’s not your decision! We will tell you what you can and cannot do.” 

And even better, since I – as well as pretty much all of the folks who will be voting on these new laws — was born before 2006, the new bans won’t affect me at all. Smoking, drinking, skiing, swimming, driving, and sex. It’s been a lot of fun and — at least for me — will continue to be. I’m sorry you kids will never get to experience any of it. 

Tom Keane is a Boston-based freelance writer.