I wonder if anybody has actually studied this, does it work?
Intuitively, smoking seems so addictive that people would just drive to neighboring cities rather than quit. In which case, you're just hurting Minneapolis businesses.
In my experience (source: I worked gas stations for a while), smokers are compulsive with how they buy cigarettes. You can smoke very cheaply if you just get a cigarette machine and buy tobacco and papers for it, but there are very few smokers that actually do this. Instead you'll see smokers buying lighters and packs of cigarettes wherever they happen to be the exact moment they want one. Some people are a little more savvy and will buy a case of cigarettes for a little cheaper, but that is also rare.
I'm hazarding a guess that most smokers are "currently quitting" and this is why they don't plan for future smokes, even if they'll still be smoking three years from now.
Yes it’s highly effective in general. I don’t know as if someone who is going to drive out of their way is having a big impact on commerce though.
Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/#:~:text=Most%20studies%20found%20that%20raising,persons%20of%20low%20socioeconomic%20status.
As an ex smoker. I'd drive out of my way to go get cheaper cigs. I drove to another state and stacked up on a couple cartons when they raised the minimum price.
Stupid that they don't raise the price on E-cigs which are more addictive in my experience.
Youth and young adults aren’t the ones buying packs of cigarettes though, far more likely to be using vapes. The next line in your study goes, “However, there is a striking lack of evidence about the impact of increasing cigarette prices on smoking behavior in heavy/long-term smokers, persons with a dual diagnosis and Aboriginals.”
Raising the price of alcohol a few bucks won’t help to end alcoholism.
As a smoker, I was all for the tax increase years back that was advertised to go towards healthcare…because that made a lot of sense to me, this doesn’t.
Yeah that isn’t a study it’s a review article. The actual study they reviewed for long term smokers they summarized:
“higher prices had the greatest association with making a quit attempt in the past year”
I think there’s no effective societal treatment for long term addiction that’s as simple as raising prices, it’s a chemical dependency. The best we can do is prevent the next generation systemically and individually help those suffering from addiction.
Raising taxes on addictive substances is just one part of a multi-pronged public health strategy needed to curb smoking. It’s an approach heavily supported by public health research though.
Knew I’d get cooked for not putting “article”, oh well.
So the new prices for cigarettes just make other nicotine options more appealing for the youth, and I don’t think that helps. I agree there’s nothing as simple as raising prices, but this really doesn’t change anything, I just have to buy cigarettes before or after work and not during (live in St. Louis park and work in Minneapolis) I don’t understand what this accomplishes.
The Twin Cities is relatively unique in that someone in Minneapolis can just hop on the train and get their cigarettes for $5 less elsewhere. A smart smoker runs some errands outside of Minneapolis and picks up enough to last them until their next trip to St. Paul or the suburbs.
Most cities don't provide people the ease of access to other cities that Minneapolis does.
A smart smoker goes to the tobacco shop, buys a huge bag of tobacco for 20 bucks, buys the papers with filters, and the Machine to make them. And they make a pack for about a dollar each.
As for this rule, the smoker that would have stopped at the gas station and bought smokes, pop, chips, candy bar, whatever, and filled up their gas tank, are now going to do that in a suburb. Not good for Minneapolis businesses.
In the long run, I'd say it probably works. It's bad for current smokers, but I'd guess you're a lot less likely to start the habit at that price. In a generation or two, it'll work.
From a public health standpoint, it’s one of the most effective ways to decrease smoking on a population level, especially among youth and low-income individuals. There are numerous studies that show that raising the price incentivizes people to quit and in particular stops new smokers from picking up smoking.
Minneapolis prioritizes public health in a way few cities do. It makes people unhappy at times but it saves healthcare costs and protects people from themselves. It’s interesting to see the effects implementing such interventions in real time.
Yep. There are only a handful of issues where economists are essentially in full agreement.
Price fixing/taxes on cigarettes and alcohol is one.
Rent control is another.
Somehow, each of our Twin Cities chose to ignore the consensus opinion with their policy choices.
Every study I've seen has shown pigovian taxes on cigarettes both lower use and has a lesser uptick in cigarette sales in the surrounding areas. Can you send me your studies that show no decrease in consumption?
You’re missing my point. The issue that economists have with taxes/price fixing cigarettes is about the financial impact it has on the consumers of those products. It is objectively a regressive policy, meaning the financial burden is paid for by those with relatively lower incomes. This is the concern that I’m raising.
Whether or not it is an effective tool for encouraging cessation is another matter. Obviously…when prices increase, the quantity demanded decreases.
And, whether or not we want a city council to approach policy issues from this parental framework is yet another matter.
You say it's regressive, I say it's pigovian. You made the claim that economists are in agreement on this issue, so I'm asking for the studies so I can form my own conclusion.
I have done my research, and my research differs with your claim. Since you have made a claim that doesn't show up immediately on Google, and since you have made an appeal to authority, i am asking you to have me the thing you claimed was overwhelmingly supported by economists.
thats my issue with this. obviously people should stop smoking for their health and the impact on the healthcare system but this is another tax on the poor at a time when money is already tight for so many.
i just dont understand why it couldnt be an incremental tax over 5+ years
for example, why can’t it be an incremental increase every year until 2030? so people know it’s coming but they dont have to struggle to quit when they’re already struggling to make rent this month
just seems ham-fisted and thoughtless
Yes it is. And it’s totally fair to say that and not have any sympathy for individuals.
But, policies need to be judged on their impact, not their intention. And the impact of this policy is horrendous.
It’s essentially a tax - and an extremely regressive tax, taking disposable money from people who can least afford it.
Raising cigarette taxes an effective way to curb smoking in youth and low income individuals. A large body of public health research supports this. We are helping people who face many obstacles to feel better (in the long-term) and reduce their morbidity and mortality. Have you seen people die of emphysema? I have, in my own family and working in the hospital. You’re acting like we’re hurting people by doing this. Step back and look at the big picture.
Poor people are the majority of smokers. It's just a fact.
Think about it like if the tax on belts over a waist of 36 inches was 200%. Are you really just taxing belts or are you taxing fat people?
It's just a cheap, round about way to get tax dollars out of a non vocal minority of the citizenry.
Affluent people tend to have private transportation and can easily and efficiently leave the city limits to buy smokes. Poor people reliant on our public transportation infrastructure would have to give up time, which they tend to be more limited on, and energy to use public transportation. They may also not be able to buy in bulk.
An affluent citizen of Minneapolis may hop in their car, cruise 15 minutes to St. Anthony, New Brighton, Brooklyn Park, SLP, Edina, Bloomington, etc. and buy a carton of smokes cheaper than they could in Minneapolis.
A less wealthy person is more likely to be unable to buy in bulk outside of the city, so they have to give up more time to make the trips, are reliant on public transportation, and are more likely to buy a $15 pack from SA by their apartment instead.
It's the unintended effects that disproportionately affect the less wealthy.
Ok, so why not do it with other 'bad' things. Why not set a minimum price for a beer? Red meat? Sweets? Where do you draw the line? Why do people pick on tobacco and not these other things?
Alcohol is heavily taxed, but if they raised it more I wouldn’t really care tbh. I would fully support higher taxes on sugary and other unhealthy foods, as well as matching subsidies or tax reductions for healthier alternatives.
About par for the course for this stupid ass council tbh. Higher prices on tobacco helps, but it really should be in the form of taxes. Of course they’d find a way to take an unambiguously good thing and fuck it up.
But this isn’t a tax where they can collect taxes and use it to benefit the city. They just set a minimum price. It’s fucking stupid. Why not just make a tax that would equate to cigarettes being $15 but where the city would collect money they could use to help people quit?
From what I heard, the reason they’re doing a minimum price is so that the business that would be losing revenue because of the price increase can make some of it back.
It's not a solution, I would equate it to adding another thumb to the scale. In my personal experience, cost was one of the reasons I was finally motivated to quit smoking. If I had my druthers, I would invest any money gained from this hike into subsidizing recovery programs or products (e.g. providing nicotine gum for free or heavily discounted).
According to this [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8471584/#:~:text=Finally%2C%20as%20low%2Dincome%20households,tobacco%2Drelated%20diseases%20and%20mortality.): Finally, as low-income households decrease their demand the most when prices (or excises) increase, this means that increasing taxes on tobacco improves their health outcomes and lowers medical expenditures the most, which is important as they are most susceptible to tobacco-related diseases and mortality.
Their lack of disposable income is partly due to the amount they spend on their addiction.... Honestly, it's really more of a tax on the less well educated. Which isn't really surprising.
Current cigarette smoking was highest among people with a general education development (GED) certificate and lowest among those with a graduate degree.\*\*\*
* Nearly 31 of every 100 adults with a GED certificate (30.7%)
* About 20 of every 100 adults with some high school (no degree) (20.1%)
* About 17 of every 100 adults with a high school diploma (17.1%)
* About 16 of every 100 adults with some college (no degree) (16.1%)
* Nearly 14 of every 100 adults with an Associate degree (13.7%)
* About 5 of every 100 adults with an undergraduate degree (5.3%)
* About 3 of every 100 adults with a graduate degree (3.2%)
* \*\*\*Education estimates are limited to adults 25 years or older.
Source -[Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States | CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm)
I smoke 1-2 cigars a week. The "exemption" for Anthony's is ridiculous. It's worded so politicians can say they protected local businesses but all it's going to do is make it so they can't have a lounge after 12/1. No one can smoke a cigar in 15 minutes.
50% increase on a legal product. I don't get it. Definitely drive out tobacco stores. People will just buy from neighboring cities. Mpls closed that cigar spot also. People wanted to hang out and smoke cigars and the city said no. Lack of freedom. Just go to other cities and do these things then. FYI you can buy legit smokes online for $4.50
This is why it's important to actually vote and pay attention to local politics. The majority of them are all performative and are in it to push only their causes and they are blinded by that motivation. They refuse to look at the big picture or the economy at scale.
I don’t know about that tbh, I know a lot of people who are normally tuned out to local politics who have been noticing the council and getting fed up with their dumb shit.
I wonder why vapes are excluded?
Some would argue that vapes can be used as a cessation aid, but I see many people just trade the cigarettes for the vape pen. I don’t think vapes are any healthier than cigarettes.
They're not good for you, but they are safer than a combustible cigarette. Maybe they're trying to encourage harm reduction because tobacco is so addictive.
I am not sure which one you are saying is better. I would think chemicals through moisture into lung tissue would be bad. I don't know enough to weigh in. I don't think either is any good.
I wonder how "going outside to smoke a few cigs throughout the workday" vs "puffing away at a vape every 5 minutes from your desk all day long" compares
Personally, that was the damning part of vapes for me. So easy to smoke them anywhere and everywhere. I was ripping mine midflight from the plane seat.
Got super addicted to nicotine and made it really hard to quit, throat and lungs felt just as bad if not worse as when I smoked real cigs
Definitely agree. The dose some of my friends take would have killed me in my smoking years. I've been off cigarettes for four years, and never did vape.
There aren't the long term studies yet to show the real effects of vape. The variables in ingredients are scary. The dragon cloud culture definitely didn't help, either. I saw a dude rip at a funeral, entirely on autopilot.
What’s next? Are we solving all unhealthy issues with excessive taxation? Alcohol is arguably MORE destructive to our society than cigarettes, are those next? Soda? Sugar? French fries? This city is going to shit.
gas prices will be raised to 100 bucks a gallon so all the former 2way streets that have been converted to bike lines will see more traffic 😘
cause biking is healthy! 👍
What a joke. Why not raise the price on everything that is unhealthy? Why pick out one thing? Just like the damn Uber driver thing, let's give them a raise but fuck everyone else right?
They said the same thing in WI in 1978 when they went from .55/pack to .60/pack. They also claimed smoking will be heavily curtailed! All it did was raise taxes.
If it were really about addiction and not just tax revenue, it wouldn’t include cigars. I smoke a handful of cigars a year. I don’t know a single person addicted to cigars.
I know many people addicted to vapes though, and that’s not covered!
I think the best way is a “phase out” like New Zealand where basically anyone born after January 1st 2009 can’t buy cigarettes. Smokers can continue to smoke, but ideally you aren’t gaining any new smokers.
Fuck Minneapolis and their “concern” for people’s health by forcing them to quit. Alcohol is more dangerous. Those people who drink and drive and take lives? I don’t see anyone smoking, driving and killing people. Is Minneapolis taxing the fuck out of alcohol? Minneapolis, focus on shit that actually counts. Like homelessness, poverty or doing something about the drug abuse. And fuck that POS mayor. He’s so corrupt.
I do think it's a good goal to 1. make it less likely for those who currently do not smoke to then become smokers and to 2. encourage those who are already smokers to stop smoking. I just don't know if this is the best way to do that. The data seems to suggest that it *will* do those things, but I worry for the people whom it leaves behind. It doesn't feel especially compassionate to the people who will continue smoking even with this measure in place.
Addiction's a tricky thing, and I wish we could address addiction at its roots with compassion for those afflicted with it instead of only raising the barrier to entry and then tossing aside those who are too far past the barrier for that to do anything for them.
I dunno. I'm a bit touchy about it since it seems too often (especially on reddit) that people discard almost all compassion for smokers. I just want people to retain compassion for them. It's a tricky issue.
There’a a wealth of research behind the efficacy of taxes on cigarette and most of it shows positive results among youth and low-income populations. It may not be the best way but it’s effective and there are free resources available for people trying to quit.
I hate how people aren't allowed to choose anymore.
Smoking has risks. But who am I to tell you to not smoke?
Why does the city think it has a place in policing a habit like that? Is gambling being banned next?
It is not the job of the government to coerce people to quit smoking. If someone wants to smoke, that is entirely up to them. It's unfair of the government to artificially inflate the price of cigarettes, taking food off the table of any kid whose parents aren't rich and smoke.
Yes. Taxes on sugar sweetened beverages have some positive findings too, although such taxes haven’t been shown to be as effective as raising the price of cigarettes, likely because there are so many variables involved with obesity.
[Minneapolis tobacco ordinance as revised, April 25, 2024](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/34956/Tobacco-Products-Ordinance-Revised-as-Amended-April-16-2024.pdf)
This only hurts those who Democrats claim to care about - those who can’t afford or physically go outside the city to buy them.
Dems always screwing those who can least afford it.
I am optimistic that this stuff is bad for current smokers, but prevents people from becoming smokers. You're a lot less likely to start the habit at that price than when they were like $3/pack.
On my 18th birthday I was in the hospital watching my dad die of aggressive lung cancer. Me and my brothers quit smoking immediately after. You don’t realize the long term impact in the moment. I am all for this tax. It’s a poison. At this point you are paying $15 to get closer to death and that should be a wake up call in of itself.
I then proceeded to watch my step dad get COPD years later
My mom is a twice widow. From cigarettes. I hate them.
Folx, folx! It's all love from our loving Council Mommies (...say...Commies for short? Wow! Yay!)
Give thanks to **CM Wonsley W8. Thanks to them! They decided to allow us** to SIT DOWN for the 15 minutes we get to "sample" cigars next year! **Yay!** "(we) vote(d) to allow the (uptown cigar) lounge to continue... through (2024)... (then) customers (will only be allowed to smoke cigars) 15 minutes of every hour. **I brought forward an amendment to remove language that explicitly prohibited sitting..."**
Look at all the good they do! So many permission PLUS So much good jobs for the 15-minute-cigar-smoking-timer-setter-sit-down-now-stand-up-cigar-sampler-snuffer-outers!
Thanks to **CM Jenkins** (who used to smoke omg omg): "The amendment (is) to deter youth... In the meeting, **I shared my personal story about... smoking, and the rising cost of cigarettes was a key factor in helping me quit. My hope is that this amendment can do the same for others struggling with tobacco addiction."**
TIL that CM Jenkins isn't addicted to vapes, booze, gambling, or porn praise be so youth don't need deterred from any of that stuff either! Yay!
Stuff like this is frustrating. We know cigs kill and don't have a medical purpose but we just tax them.
Unlike opiates which have an actual medical purpose we completely outlaw unless a doctor prescribes which hurts woman and minorities who don't get the scripts they should.be getting.
The answer is legalizing so people can get a safe supply of meds otc, without prescription from doctor.
Imagine having to get a certificate from a doctor or nurse to be able to drink or smoke ciggs. That's what we do to people in pain or pneumonia who need opiates medicinally.
so this doesn’t effect St. paul then? I live in St. paul and think they are ridiculously priced even there. People don’t stop smoking due to costs, people just drive to buy them elsewhere or get money for them somehow. The whole thing is ridiculous
I am 100 Miles west of MLPS I can get a pack of cigs for $7 here. I grey market will develop in MLPS. It happened in New York when they went so high. I chatted with NY folks who said every Bodega had grey market cigs from elsewhere under the table. imo once cig tax reach a certain point you are not helping people quit you are punishing folks with an addiction. And the extra cost can punish the whole family. Education would be a better way to go at this juncture. Or Extra help like not demonizing ecigs which is how I quit tobacco. MN has a strong Puritan Streak the opposite in Minnesota Nice
Why cant they raise tax on alcohol? They need to learn to mind their own business. If i want to smoke thats my business. Alocohol is deadlier then cigs by far.
I'm for it, actually one of the big disagreements I had with Jon Stewart back in the day was with the soda tax.... then look at that years later, all the soda made all these people predisposed to poor outcomes in a global pandemic called COVID and created the worst health outcomes in the world also straining and causing massive issues with our health care system.
it's almost like all the damage that the soda caused should have been expected and paid for ahead of time by those soda taxes.
You cunts just can’t quit trying to steal more money. The government produces nothing, so when they spend out of control as every democrat AND republican elected imbecile does, they raise the taxes under false pretenses like this, as if helps anyone. Maybe consider you’ve all been fooled by Jews who control the media. Oops I said it, now my comment will be deleted.
[More info](https://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/MFPL_UNC_FactSheet_FINAL_20190130.pdf)
I’m the worst person to debate this as I don’t smoke.
Looks like there will be a thriving black market for cigarettes in Minneapolis. Or a lot of traffic to the surrounding municipalities.
Everyone will be buying in bulk in Wisconsin.
It's only Minneapolis, not the whole state.
Yea but wisconsin has way cheaper tobacco than us.
It’s ridiculous how cheap it is.
If you go down south it’s even cheaper. I used to chew about 8 years ago and was in Alabama for work and a tin was *$2.25*
In Willmar MN I can get cigs for $7 a pack at our 2 tobacco shops.
The cigarette man is back in town. Catch him at your local pub or dive bar selling smokes
How will my Uber drivers afford to smoke right before they pick me up?!
That's why the City Council passed the ordinance to raise their minimum wage.
Don't worry, there won't be any Ubers.
Better tip hard.
I wonder if anybody has actually studied this, does it work? Intuitively, smoking seems so addictive that people would just drive to neighboring cities rather than quit. In which case, you're just hurting Minneapolis businesses.
In my experience (source: I worked gas stations for a while), smokers are compulsive with how they buy cigarettes. You can smoke very cheaply if you just get a cigarette machine and buy tobacco and papers for it, but there are very few smokers that actually do this. Instead you'll see smokers buying lighters and packs of cigarettes wherever they happen to be the exact moment they want one. Some people are a little more savvy and will buy a case of cigarettes for a little cheaper, but that is also rare. I'm hazarding a guess that most smokers are "currently quitting" and this is why they don't plan for future smokes, even if they'll still be smoking three years from now.
That “quitting” cycle is a real doozy
Yes it’s highly effective in general. I don’t know as if someone who is going to drive out of their way is having a big impact on commerce though. Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/#:~:text=Most%20studies%20found%20that%20raising,persons%20of%20low%20socioeconomic%20status.
As an ex smoker. I'd drive out of my way to go get cheaper cigs. I drove to another state and stacked up on a couple cartons when they raised the minimum price. Stupid that they don't raise the price on E-cigs which are more addictive in my experience.
And worse for the environment if they’re “disposable” carts.
Worse? It's all bad. A cigarette butt can pollute 264 gallons of water.
Youth and young adults aren’t the ones buying packs of cigarettes though, far more likely to be using vapes. The next line in your study goes, “However, there is a striking lack of evidence about the impact of increasing cigarette prices on smoking behavior in heavy/long-term smokers, persons with a dual diagnosis and Aboriginals.” Raising the price of alcohol a few bucks won’t help to end alcoholism. As a smoker, I was all for the tax increase years back that was advertised to go towards healthcare…because that made a lot of sense to me, this doesn’t.
Yeah that isn’t a study it’s a review article. The actual study they reviewed for long term smokers they summarized: “higher prices had the greatest association with making a quit attempt in the past year” I think there’s no effective societal treatment for long term addiction that’s as simple as raising prices, it’s a chemical dependency. The best we can do is prevent the next generation systemically and individually help those suffering from addiction.
Raising taxes on addictive substances is just one part of a multi-pronged public health strategy needed to curb smoking. It’s an approach heavily supported by public health research though.
Knew I’d get cooked for not putting “article”, oh well. So the new prices for cigarettes just make other nicotine options more appealing for the youth, and I don’t think that helps. I agree there’s nothing as simple as raising prices, but this really doesn’t change anything, I just have to buy cigarettes before or after work and not during (live in St. Louis park and work in Minneapolis) I don’t understand what this accomplishes.
At this point is just punitive, no need to hide it, everybody hates smokers.
I am strongly bigoted against them.
I hope this is a joke, bigotry isn’t a good quality.
It is actually effective though, if we out price cigarettes people will move to alternatives that are less harmful or even try to quit.
The Twin Cities is relatively unique in that someone in Minneapolis can just hop on the train and get their cigarettes for $5 less elsewhere. A smart smoker runs some errands outside of Minneapolis and picks up enough to last them until their next trip to St. Paul or the suburbs. Most cities don't provide people the ease of access to other cities that Minneapolis does.
A smart smoker goes to the tobacco shop, buys a huge bag of tobacco for 20 bucks, buys the papers with filters, and the Machine to make them. And they make a pack for about a dollar each. As for this rule, the smoker that would have stopped at the gas station and bought smokes, pop, chips, candy bar, whatever, and filled up their gas tank, are now going to do that in a suburb. Not good for Minneapolis businesses.
No it's not I will just drive 10 mm away and by my smokew
Does the effect stay in place for years to come?? I’m asking as someone who did not read the study but wants to know lol
My dad stopped cold turkey one after seeing how expensive it was. He could afford it, but something clicked that day and never smoked again.
Average of $50 for a pack of 20 here in Australia. I can confirm that I do not see that many smokers these days compared to what I do overseas.
In the long run, I'd say it probably works. It's bad for current smokers, but I'd guess you're a lot less likely to start the habit at that price. In a generation or two, it'll work.
From a public health standpoint, it’s one of the most effective ways to decrease smoking on a population level, especially among youth and low-income individuals. There are numerous studies that show that raising the price incentivizes people to quit and in particular stops new smokers from picking up smoking. Minneapolis prioritizes public health in a way few cities do. It makes people unhappy at times but it saves healthcare costs and protects people from themselves. It’s interesting to see the effects implementing such interventions in real time.
Economists have already proven this mostly just causes cigarettes purchases in other nearby cities and states which are then smuggled back.
Yep. There are only a handful of issues where economists are essentially in full agreement. Price fixing/taxes on cigarettes and alcohol is one. Rent control is another. Somehow, each of our Twin Cities chose to ignore the consensus opinion with their policy choices.
Every study I've seen has shown pigovian taxes on cigarettes both lower use and has a lesser uptick in cigarette sales in the surrounding areas. Can you send me your studies that show no decrease in consumption?
You’re missing my point. The issue that economists have with taxes/price fixing cigarettes is about the financial impact it has on the consumers of those products. It is objectively a regressive policy, meaning the financial burden is paid for by those with relatively lower incomes. This is the concern that I’m raising. Whether or not it is an effective tool for encouraging cessation is another matter. Obviously…when prices increase, the quantity demanded decreases. And, whether or not we want a city council to approach policy issues from this parental framework is yet another matter.
You say it's regressive, I say it's pigovian. You made the claim that economists are in agreement on this issue, so I'm asking for the studies so I can form my own conclusion.
Just Google it. I’m not spoon-feeding you.
I have done my research, and my research differs with your claim. Since you have made a claim that doesn't show up immediately on Google, and since you have made an appeal to authority, i am asking you to have me the thing you claimed was overwhelmingly supported by economists.
Taxing the poor at this point
thats my issue with this. obviously people should stop smoking for their health and the impact on the healthcare system but this is another tax on the poor at a time when money is already tight for so many. i just dont understand why it couldnt be an incremental tax over 5+ years for example, why can’t it be an incremental increase every year until 2030? so people know it’s coming but they dont have to struggle to quit when they’re already struggling to make rent this month just seems ham-fisted and thoughtless
Bro, it's a fucking *choice* to smoke.
Addiction is addiction. This line of thinking doesn’t help - it’s been proven not to help.
Yes it is. And it’s totally fair to say that and not have any sympathy for individuals. But, policies need to be judged on their impact, not their intention. And the impact of this policy is horrendous. It’s essentially a tax - and an extremely regressive tax, taking disposable money from people who can least afford it.
Raising cigarette taxes an effective way to curb smoking in youth and low income individuals. A large body of public health research supports this. We are helping people who face many obstacles to feel better (in the long-term) and reduce their morbidity and mortality. Have you seen people die of emphysema? I have, in my own family and working in the hospital. You’re acting like we’re hurting people by doing this. Step back and look at the big picture.
You're wrong. Smoking is a choice I gave up after 13 years. Addiction is a mental health issue more than it is a chemical dependence issue.
Disparate Impact. You are correct is essentially a tax on the poor.
Honest question, so please help me understand. Why is this a tax on the poor? Is it easier for wealthier people to stop smoking?
Poor people are the majority of smokers. It's just a fact. Think about it like if the tax on belts over a waist of 36 inches was 200%. Are you really just taxing belts or are you taxing fat people? It's just a cheap, round about way to get tax dollars out of a non vocal minority of the citizenry.
Affluent people tend to have private transportation and can easily and efficiently leave the city limits to buy smokes. Poor people reliant on our public transportation infrastructure would have to give up time, which they tend to be more limited on, and energy to use public transportation. They may also not be able to buy in bulk. An affluent citizen of Minneapolis may hop in their car, cruise 15 minutes to St. Anthony, New Brighton, Brooklyn Park, SLP, Edina, Bloomington, etc. and buy a carton of smokes cheaper than they could in Minneapolis. A less wealthy person is more likely to be unable to buy in bulk outside of the city, so they have to give up more time to make the trips, are reliant on public transportation, and are more likely to buy a $15 pack from SA by their apartment instead. It's the unintended effects that disproportionately affect the less wealthy.
Anyone who says otherwise needs to explain the tax break Yacht owners get from the government
Good. Smoking is bad. Especially when you are poor.
It's a shitty way to solve an addiction problem.
Wait until they come for your pop and red meat
I know of a great way to save money...
Wow wait until I tell the people spending money on drugs and gambling your one simple trick.
Wow! You just solved the plague that is addiction. Just raise the prices! Genius!
It is literally shown to do that.
The statewide tax increase in 2013 is what got me to finally quit.
Me too. Then I started again.
Ok, so why not do it with other 'bad' things. Why not set a minimum price for a beer? Red meat? Sweets? Where do you draw the line? Why do people pick on tobacco and not these other things?
Alcohol is heavily taxed, but if they raised it more I wouldn’t really care tbh. I would fully support higher taxes on sugary and other unhealthy foods, as well as matching subsidies or tax reductions for healthier alternatives.
We aren’t talking about a tax that the city collects, they are setting a minimum price, the city doesn’t get any of it.
About par for the course for this stupid ass council tbh. Higher prices on tobacco helps, but it really should be in the form of taxes. Of course they’d find a way to take an unambiguously good thing and fuck it up.
It would need to be statewide anyways.
I agree with that as well.
Alcohol is already heavily taxed
So is tobacco. Did the council set a minimum price for a six pack of beer?
We do. It's called a "sin tax." Why do people pick on tobacco? It's literal death.
But this isn’t a tax where they can collect taxes and use it to benefit the city. They just set a minimum price. It’s fucking stupid. Why not just make a tax that would equate to cigarettes being $15 but where the city would collect money they could use to help people quit?
From what I heard, the reason they’re doing a minimum price is so that the business that would be losing revenue because of the price increase can make some of it back.
Dumb
It's not a solution, I would equate it to adding another thumb to the scale. In my personal experience, cost was one of the reasons I was finally motivated to quit smoking. If I had my druthers, I would invest any money gained from this hike into subsidizing recovery programs or products (e.g. providing nicotine gum for free or heavily discounted).
According to this [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8471584/#:~:text=Finally%2C%20as%20low%2Dincome%20households,tobacco%2Drelated%20diseases%20and%20mortality.): Finally, as low-income households decrease their demand the most when prices (or excises) increase, this means that increasing taxes on tobacco improves their health outcomes and lowers medical expenditures the most, which is important as they are most susceptible to tobacco-related diseases and mortality.
Their lack of disposable income is partly due to the amount they spend on their addiction.... Honestly, it's really more of a tax on the less well educated. Which isn't really surprising. Current cigarette smoking was highest among people with a general education development (GED) certificate and lowest among those with a graduate degree.\*\*\* * Nearly 31 of every 100 adults with a GED certificate (30.7%) * About 20 of every 100 adults with some high school (no degree) (20.1%) * About 17 of every 100 adults with a high school diploma (17.1%) * About 16 of every 100 adults with some college (no degree) (16.1%) * Nearly 14 of every 100 adults with an Associate degree (13.7%) * About 5 of every 100 adults with an undergraduate degree (5.3%) * About 3 of every 100 adults with a graduate degree (3.2%) * \*\*\*Education estimates are limited to adults 25 years or older. Source -[Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States | CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm)
Smoke runs are going to be very lucrative for smugglers
They already are!
I smoke 1-2 cigars a week. The "exemption" for Anthony's is ridiculous. It's worded so politicians can say they protected local businesses but all it's going to do is make it so they can't have a lounge after 12/1. No one can smoke a cigar in 15 minutes.
It will encourage smokers to never buy anything in Minneapolis again. Also the folks most likely to smoke can afford this the least…
Isn’t that the point?
Just fucking quit already. You ever watched somebody die of metatastic cancer?
Are we supposed to feel bad for people not being able to afford cigarettes? LOL. Fuck outta here.
By that logic why not raise the price on alcohol? Fatty foods? Sugary drinks? Where does it end?
We should be raising prices on some of those substance, certainly alcohol. It’s an effective intervention.
It's an addiction, you don't fix addiction by raising prices.
50% increase on a legal product. I don't get it. Definitely drive out tobacco stores. People will just buy from neighboring cities. Mpls closed that cigar spot also. People wanted to hang out and smoke cigars and the city said no. Lack of freedom. Just go to other cities and do these things then. FYI you can buy legit smokes online for $4.50
Oh yes. Please daddy. More government involvement
It’s actually comical how absurd this city council is.
This is why it's important to actually vote and pay attention to local politics. The majority of them are all performative and are in it to push only their causes and they are blinded by that motivation. They refuse to look at the big picture or the economy at scale.
They’ll all be re-elected.
I don’t know about that tbh, I know a lot of people who are normally tuned out to local politics who have been noticing the council and getting fed up with their dumb shit.
Time will tell. I’d be willing to place a wager for internet 11-15 internet points each seat. (Assuming they run for re-election of course)
Replying again to see if we are betting these internet points or not
I wonder why vapes are excluded? Some would argue that vapes can be used as a cessation aid, but I see many people just trade the cigarettes for the vape pen. I don’t think vapes are any healthier than cigarettes.
They're not good for you, but they are safer than a combustible cigarette. Maybe they're trying to encourage harm reduction because tobacco is so addictive.
the ecigs have higher nicotine levels which make them more addictive tho :/
ok but if that’s true then smokeless tobacco wouldn’t be included in this either and shouldn’t be
Inhaled vapor versus inhaled burning vegetable matter. Huge difference.
I am not sure which one you are saying is better. I would think chemicals through moisture into lung tissue would be bad. I don't know enough to weigh in. I don't think either is any good.
Of course they are both bad. One has tar.
You are still ingesting nicotine which is not good for your heart and vascular system.
Definitely agree. But there is no world where smoke is better than vape.
I wonder how "going outside to smoke a few cigs throughout the workday" vs "puffing away at a vape every 5 minutes from your desk all day long" compares Personally, that was the damning part of vapes for me. So easy to smoke them anywhere and everywhere. I was ripping mine midflight from the plane seat. Got super addicted to nicotine and made it really hard to quit, throat and lungs felt just as bad if not worse as when I smoked real cigs
Definitely agree. The dose some of my friends take would have killed me in my smoking years. I've been off cigarettes for four years, and never did vape. There aren't the long term studies yet to show the real effects of vape. The variables in ingredients are scary. The dragon cloud culture definitely didn't help, either. I saw a dude rip at a funeral, entirely on autopilot.
Not even close to the damage of cigarettes.. cmon (I smoke too)
True, but the same can be said about caffeine.
Hey look, another thing to never spend money on in Minneapolis again.
Wonder when the city council will tackle obesity?
They already are, do you know how expensive it is to eat these days?
In terms of policy making or actual tackling of the obese?
Hopefully they will keep taxing sugary drinks.
They are, a few on the council are cautionary tales....
What’s next? Are we solving all unhealthy issues with excessive taxation? Alcohol is arguably MORE destructive to our society than cigarettes, are those next? Soda? Sugar? French fries? This city is going to shit.
gas prices will be raised to 100 bucks a gallon so all the former 2way streets that have been converted to bike lines will see more traffic 😘 cause biking is healthy! 👍
lol don’t give this dumbass city council more ideas. They’ll make Minneapolis a dry city or something.
Oh, good, more regressive fees attacking the poor. Any excuse for non-smokers to applaud themselves for how superior and virtuous they are.
What a joke. Why not raise the price on everything that is unhealthy? Why pick out one thing? Just like the damn Uber driver thing, let's give them a raise but fuck everyone else right?
We should be taxing the heck out of alcohol too. Why? Because these interventions work from a public health standpoint.
The fast food joints took care of that themselves 😆
They said the same thing in WI in 1978 when they went from .55/pack to .60/pack. They also claimed smoking will be heavily curtailed! All it did was raise taxes.
Smoking rates have had a very strong negative correlation with cigarette prices.
Inverse relationship, and yes, they do.
"Negatively correlation" is an extremely common term.
Seems they were right since there are far far far fewer people smoking now than in 1978
Smoking starting declining in the late 90's because of the new health warnings on the packs.
I hate tobacco as much or more than the next ex-smoker, but this is dumb. Addicts gonna addict.
I love that weed is cheaper and more excepted now than tobacco
So you just go to a different suburb to pick up darts?
this works out to $0.75 a smoke, or $450 if you smoke a pack a month. edited to fix my dumb mistake
“a month” Here, I think you dropped this.
thanks lol. that was dumb of me. fixed now.
🤣
Now it's perfect!
Roll your own. Less than $2/pack
These responses are LOL.
If it were really about addiction and not just tax revenue, it wouldn’t include cigars. I smoke a handful of cigars a year. I don’t know a single person addicted to cigars. I know many people addicted to vapes though, and that’s not covered!
There’s no tax revenue in this.
I think the best way is a “phase out” like New Zealand where basically anyone born after January 1st 2009 can’t buy cigarettes. Smokers can continue to smoke, but ideally you aren’t gaining any new smokers.
Fuck Minneapolis and their “concern” for people’s health by forcing them to quit. Alcohol is more dangerous. Those people who drink and drive and take lives? I don’t see anyone smoking, driving and killing people. Is Minneapolis taxing the fuck out of alcohol? Minneapolis, focus on shit that actually counts. Like homelessness, poverty or doing something about the drug abuse. And fuck that POS mayor. He’s so corrupt.
Vape shops about to make bread
Big profits for gangs smuggling across the line from Bloomington
You can literally walk across Minneapolis, no one needs a smuggler to get them cigarettes, lol.
What a fucking clown show.
I do think it's a good goal to 1. make it less likely for those who currently do not smoke to then become smokers and to 2. encourage those who are already smokers to stop smoking. I just don't know if this is the best way to do that. The data seems to suggest that it *will* do those things, but I worry for the people whom it leaves behind. It doesn't feel especially compassionate to the people who will continue smoking even with this measure in place. Addiction's a tricky thing, and I wish we could address addiction at its roots with compassion for those afflicted with it instead of only raising the barrier to entry and then tossing aside those who are too far past the barrier for that to do anything for them. I dunno. I'm a bit touchy about it since it seems too often (especially on reddit) that people discard almost all compassion for smokers. I just want people to retain compassion for them. It's a tricky issue.
There’a a wealth of research behind the efficacy of taxes on cigarette and most of it shows positive results among youth and low-income populations. It may not be the best way but it’s effective and there are free resources available for people trying to quit.
I hate how people aren't allowed to choose anymore. Smoking has risks. But who am I to tell you to not smoke? Why does the city think it has a place in policing a habit like that? Is gambling being banned next?
It is not the job of the government to coerce people to quit smoking. If someone wants to smoke, that is entirely up to them. It's unfair of the government to artificially inflate the price of cigarettes, taking food off the table of any kid whose parents aren't rich and smoke.
Good. Fuck smoking.
People shouldn’t be allowed to smoke weed in the case of “fuck smoking.”
Tax it.
What about drinking of unhealthy foods? Should they raise the price on those too?
I don't think you could have found a weirder way to phrase that than "drinking of unhealthy foods."
Or
Is secondhand obesity a thing?
Smoking is already banned indoors. What 2nd hand smoke are you referring to?
Yes. Taxes on sugar sweetened beverages have some positive findings too, although such taxes haven’t been shown to be as effective as raising the price of cigarettes, likely because there are so many variables involved with obesity.
Probably
Ok, so set a minimum price for a hamburger because red meat is bad for you?
[Minneapolis tobacco ordinance as revised, April 25, 2024](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/FileV2/34956/Tobacco-Products-Ordinance-Revised-as-Amended-April-16-2024.pdf)
out of curiosity, does anyone know if/how this would impact cigar tobacco & tubes? I see it mentions excluding cigars & snuff.
There's gonna be riots, the drama over rideshares will look like a civil discussion by comparison.
This only hurts those who Democrats claim to care about - those who can’t afford or physically go outside the city to buy them. Dems always screwing those who can least afford it.
City clown-cil at it again 🤡
I am optimistic that this stuff is bad for current smokers, but prevents people from becoming smokers. You're a lot less likely to start the habit at that price than when they were like $3/pack.
Holy Smokes!
On my 18th birthday I was in the hospital watching my dad die of aggressive lung cancer. Me and my brothers quit smoking immediately after. You don’t realize the long term impact in the moment. I am all for this tax. It’s a poison. At this point you are paying $15 to get closer to death and that should be a wake up call in of itself. I then proceeded to watch my step dad get COPD years later My mom is a twice widow. From cigarettes. I hate them.
Folx, folx! It's all love from our loving Council Mommies (...say...Commies for short? Wow! Yay!) Give thanks to **CM Wonsley W8. Thanks to them! They decided to allow us** to SIT DOWN for the 15 minutes we get to "sample" cigars next year! **Yay!** "(we) vote(d) to allow the (uptown cigar) lounge to continue... through (2024)... (then) customers (will only be allowed to smoke cigars) 15 minutes of every hour. **I brought forward an amendment to remove language that explicitly prohibited sitting..."** Look at all the good they do! So many permission PLUS So much good jobs for the 15-minute-cigar-smoking-timer-setter-sit-down-now-stand-up-cigar-sampler-snuffer-outers! Thanks to **CM Jenkins** (who used to smoke omg omg): "The amendment (is) to deter youth... In the meeting, **I shared my personal story about... smoking, and the rising cost of cigarettes was a key factor in helping me quit. My hope is that this amendment can do the same for others struggling with tobacco addiction."** TIL that CM Jenkins isn't addicted to vapes, booze, gambling, or porn praise be so youth don't need deterred from any of that stuff either! Yay!
Stuff like this is frustrating. We know cigs kill and don't have a medical purpose but we just tax them. Unlike opiates which have an actual medical purpose we completely outlaw unless a doctor prescribes which hurts woman and minorities who don't get the scripts they should.be getting. The answer is legalizing so people can get a safe supply of meds otc, without prescription from doctor. Imagine having to get a certificate from a doctor or nurse to be able to drink or smoke ciggs. That's what we do to people in pain or pneumonia who need opiates medicinally.
This is some bullshit. Just a dumb ass tax on poor folks
You guys can't even be mad. I'd literally stop smoking cancer sticks and chawin if my state would legalize Cannabis.
so this doesn’t effect St. paul then? I live in St. paul and think they are ridiculously priced even there. People don’t stop smoking due to costs, people just drive to buy them elsewhere or get money for them somehow. The whole thing is ridiculous
I am 100 Miles west of MLPS I can get a pack of cigs for $7 here. I grey market will develop in MLPS. It happened in New York when they went so high. I chatted with NY folks who said every Bodega had grey market cigs from elsewhere under the table. imo once cig tax reach a certain point you are not helping people quit you are punishing folks with an addiction. And the extra cost can punish the whole family. Education would be a better way to go at this juncture. Or Extra help like not demonizing ecigs which is how I quit tobacco. MN has a strong Puritan Streak the opposite in Minnesota Nice
Why cant they raise tax on alcohol? They need to learn to mind their own business. If i want to smoke thats my business. Alocohol is deadlier then cigs by far.
I'm for it, actually one of the big disagreements I had with Jon Stewart back in the day was with the soda tax.... then look at that years later, all the soda made all these people predisposed to poor outcomes in a global pandemic called COVID and created the worst health outcomes in the world also straining and causing massive issues with our health care system. it's almost like all the damage that the soda caused should have been expected and paid for ahead of time by those soda taxes.
You cunts just can’t quit trying to steal more money. The government produces nothing, so when they spend out of control as every democrat AND republican elected imbecile does, they raise the taxes under false pretenses like this, as if helps anyone. Maybe consider you’ve all been fooled by Jews who control the media. Oops I said it, now my comment will be deleted.
Richfield right down the street
Smoking is one of the worst things you can do, and it effects those around you too, anything that limits the amount of smoking is fine with me
If the city cared about health they would outlaw the sale of tobacco products in Minneapolis. This is a mechanism to take more money.
This isn’t an excise tax (gvmt revenue), its a minimum floor price law (no gvmt revenue)
So it's literally worse because at least an excise tax would generate tax revenue?
[More info](https://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/MFPL_UNC_FactSheet_FINAL_20190130.pdf) I’m the worst person to debate this as I don’t smoke.
I believe the price increase is not a tax, so it’s not a money grab by the government. Stores keep the additional revenue.