Page 9 of 14

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 13th, 2017, 9:11 pm
by David Greene
David Greene wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 8:56 pm
The pogrom post is still accessible. I asked her directly about it. We'll see what she says.
Her answer was that neighborhood organizations would be "annihilated" and that's why she said "Pogrom." I directly challenged her on the use of that word and stated that's it's necessary for our neighborhood boards to look like our neighborhoods.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 13th, 2017, 10:11 pm
by Anondson
She will demand renters have seats reserved in proportion to their share of residents in the neighborhood on the board?

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 13th, 2017, 10:19 pm
by David Greene
Anondson wrote:
July 13th, 2017, 10:11 pm
She will demand renters have seats reserved in proportion to their share of residents in the neighborhood on the board?
No, I said that our boards should be representative of our neighborhoods.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 8:48 am
by mattaudio
I'm seeing an accusation that Alondra Cano intentionally ducked out of the HECE committee so they wouldn't have quorum, so they wouldn't be able to approve the menthol cigarette regulations in committee. I'm also seeing that Jacob Frey was missing, and coincidentally his wife is a lobbyist for Holiday gas stations. Some on Twitter are suggesting that her departure from the meeting may be due to her strange partnership with Jacob Frey this election cycle.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 9:52 am
by MNdible
The whole menthol cigarette ban is strange. Shouldn't the anti-tobacco lobbyists just come and try to ban all tobacco sales to everybody?

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 10:24 am
by amiller92
Aside from pretty strong historical evidence that prohibition doesn't work and has tons of unintended consequences?

Maybe that will wind up applying to flavored cigarettes too, but with unflavored options readily available, I kind of doubt it. Meanwhile, trying to reduce that ways that the industry gets kids into smoking and keeps people hooked makes some sense.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 10:45 am
by MNdible
Strange is maybe the wrong word. It's the kind of please-a-well-connected-well-intentioned-special-interest-nanny-state policy that we'll no doubt be seeing an awful lot of in Minneapolis's near future.

There are already plenty of laws on the books limiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. Enforce them.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 10:56 am
by amiller92
The industry has all kinds of strategies to get people to use their products to which advocates try to respond.

Also, unless and until we all start paying for our own health care out of pocket, smoking costs all of us real dollars.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 11:26 am
by xandrex
A little odd to argue that prohibition doesn't work but that we should ban menthol cigarettes because it helps prevent kids from getting hooked.

On a related note, I'm surprised Minneapolis let both Edina and St. Louis Park beat it to raising the tobacco purchase age to 21. If anti-smoking efforts are your goal, that likely go further than banning just one specific type of tobacco product.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 11:41 am
by mattaudio
I don't have a position on the proposed legislation, but was far more curious about the dynamics playing out between CMs and other interests to stop it without having to come out against it.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 11:56 am
by amiller92
xandrex wrote:
July 25th, 2017, 11:26 am
A little odd to argue that prohibition doesn't work but that we should ban menthol cigarettes because it helps prevent kids from getting hooked.
What are you confused about? Flavored tobacco (we already restricted everything but mint) appeals to kids by masking the unpleasantness of smoking. Making it harder to get flavored products makes it harder for kids to get them thus fewer people will smoke. People respond to incentives. Video at 11.

They're also marketed explicitly at the black and LGBTQ communities, who, surprise, have higher rates of smoking too.

The fact that they will still be available at smoke shops and that regular cigarettes aren't going anywhere, undermines the development of the type of black market that makes prohibition ineffective. That incentive thing again.
On a related note, I'm surprised Minneapolis let both Edina and St. Louis Park beat it to raising the tobacco purchase age to 21. If anti-smoking efforts are your goal, that likely go further than banning just one specific type of tobacco product.
That's coming too, I'm sure. For what it's worth, I understand that the research doesn't really back it up as being all that effective* (and the fact that the industry like it as an alternative is telling) but it sure makes intuitive sense.

* When I say "I understand" I mean someone who keeps a pretty close eye on these things tells me.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 12:27 pm
by xandrex
amiller92 wrote:
July 25th, 2017, 11:56 am
xandrex wrote:
July 25th, 2017, 11:26 am
A little odd to argue that prohibition doesn't work but that we should ban menthol cigarettes because it helps prevent kids from getting hooked.
What are you confused about? Flavored tobacco (we already restricted everything but mint) appeals to kids by masking the unpleasantness of smoking. Making it harder to get flavored products makes it harder for kids to get them thus fewer people will smoke. People respond to incentives. Video at 11.

They're also marketed explicitly at the black and LGBTQ communities, who, surprise, have higher rates of smoking too.

The fact that they will still be available at smoke shops and that regular cigarettes aren't going anywhere, undermines the development of the type of black market that makes prohibition ineffective. That incentive thing again.
On a related note, I'm surprised Minneapolis let both Edina and St. Louis Park beat it to raising the tobacco purchase age to 21. If anti-smoking efforts are your goal, that likely go further than banning just one specific type of tobacco product.
That's coming too, I'm sure. For what it's worth, I understand that the research doesn't really back it up as being all that effective* (and the fact that the industry like it as an alternative is telling) but it sure makes intuitive sense.

* When I say "I understand" I mean someone who keeps a pretty close eye on these things tells me.
I’m not “confused.” That’s your own wording.

My point is that there’s something odd about claiming that banning tobacco sales in Minneapolis won’t have an effect because “prohibition doesn’t work,” but at the same time claiming that a narrower prohibition (i.e., a menthol tobacco ban) will work. If the problem with total prohibition is that people will cross city limits to buy them (or smuggle them in to sell), I can’t see a reason why they wouldn’t also be able to do the same for menthol cigarettes. Kids already face barriers to get tobacco (coming from a family where several are chewing tobacco users who started young, I know this pretty well). Limiting their sale to tobacco shops isn’t really that much more of a barrier.

By all means, let’s find a way to get fewer people smoking. But when this is a partial prohibition of tobacco sales in certain stores in a small geographic area, it strikes me as the type of legislation that’s ineffective but feels good.


In any case, we are well off topic at this point.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 12:34 pm
by EOst
xandrex wrote:
July 25th, 2017, 12:27 pm
By all means, let’s find a way to get fewer people smoking. But when this is a partial prohibition of tobacco sales in certain stores in a small geographic area, it strikes me as the type of legislation that’s ineffective but feels good.
But these kinds of local laws are how you build up to state and/or national laws. The statewide indoor smoking ban was a local ban first (notwithstanding Phyllis Kahn's 1975 law).

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 12:41 pm
by amiller92
xandrex wrote:
July 25th, 2017, 12:27 pm
My point is that there’s something odd about claiming that banning tobacco sales in Minneapolis won’t have an effect because “prohibition doesn’t work,” but at the same time claiming that a narrower prohibition (i.e., a menthol tobacco ban) will work.
See, you are confused. ;) This is a restriction on where these products can be sold, not a ban.

Also, that prohibition that doesn't work doesn't mean that prohibition doesn't reduce consumption (that depends). It means that prohibition doesn't drive consumption to zero and comes with a ton of unintended negative secondary effects (see, alcohol and marijuana prohibitions).

We've banned alcohol from being sold in establishments without a license (and restricted which types of establishments can get a license). It almost certainly reduces alcohol consumption at least a bit.

ETA: We've also restricted which types of alcohol can be purchased in which stores. I heard about any number of high school parties fueled by 3.2 beer stolen from the local grocery store.
Limiting their sale to tobacco shops isn’t really that much more of a barrier.
Yup, but it's is slightly more of a barrier.

EATA: Btw, it sure sounds like the industry is spending significant resources trying to oppose this (Robin Garwood mentioned robocalls and reportedly there are a bunch of industry lobbyists in town), which kind of implies that they think it's a nontrivial barrier.

(sorry, I'll stop now)

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 12:56 pm
by xandrex
amiller92 wrote:
July 25th, 2017, 12:41 pm
See, you are confused. ;) This is a restriction on where these products can be sold, not a ban
I'm quite sure you knew what I meant. ;)

In any case, I certainly am not opposed to the measure. Reducing tobacco consumption is a worthy goal. I am merely skeptical that it will have a meaningful effect on the rationale given (preventing kids and other targeted groups from smoking en masse).

On the other hand, this will no doubt have an impact on overall menthol cigarette purchases made in the city. Plenty of people only smoke menthols, so that’s good reason for the tobacco industry to fight it (it’s also the kind of ordinance that’s a canary in the coal mine for future, more-restrictive ordinances).


Back to the politics of it all – I suppose you could connect Frey with his wife’s lobbying work (though we obviously can’t confirm), but I don’t see why Cano would go along with this. If she was indeed attempting to avoid quorum, it would seem to be a very different political route she’s forging.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: July 25th, 2017, 1:40 pm
by EOst
It's also just not a very effective way to kill a bill. If they try to consistently deny quorum it'll be obvious very quickly.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: September 21st, 2017, 2:52 pm
by David Greene
Truly bizarre:

http://www.startribune.com/gum-puts-min ... 446544133/

No reasonable person would think Goodman's actions were "humor."

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: September 21st, 2017, 2:59 pm
by amiller92
I can sort of get her asking in jest, and I can sort of see being confused when he put his hand out, but a normal human being in that situation would react with, "oh, no, I was kidding, I couldn't ask you do to that." That her reaction was instead, "oh, I guess he wants to take it for me" seems kind of telling.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: September 22nd, 2017, 8:41 am
by Sacrelicio
Total bully power move. She feels threatened by the challengers I imagine.

Re: Minneapolis City Council and Park Board Elections 2017

Posted: September 23rd, 2017, 1:13 pm
by Chef
What kind of person does something like that? That isn't the act of a normal, well adjusted human being.