Published on November 15, 2005 By Jamie Burnside In Current Events

The recent debate in local newspapers and radio in the Twin Cities has to do with a smoking ban in bars and restaurants.  Hennepin County (where Minneapolis is located) currently has a ban on smoking in all bars and restaurants.

Bar owners and pulltab-dependent charities have cried foul, as bar patrons have given up Hennepin County bars and restaurants in favor of those in neighboring counties without such restrictions.  (Bars in cities bordering other counties are claiming more severe difficulties.)  Bar owners have pushed for making a ban state-wide if there has to be one at all.

(Of course a state-wide ban would drive potential smoker-drinkers to Wisconsin, the Dakotas, and possibly Ontario, thus hurting other border cities...)

I suppose that younger drinkers and grizzled bar veterans enjoy going out to bars to drink and to socialize, and to smoke if they want.  This may be an opportunity for some disgruntled bar patrons to take up drinking at home.  Drinking at home offers: cheaper drinks, no smoking ban, far less risk of getting caught driving while drunk, and no necessity to tip anyone. 

I suppose that the lesson that we learn from all of this is that people like to stack up their compulsive activities: smoking, drinking, gambling, stuff like that.  It is hard to make new laws regulating them


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 17, 2005
Many places near D.C., and even D.C. itself have banned smoking in the workplace, including bars and restaurants.


This isn't actually true. Yes, counties in Maryland have smoking bans, but there is not one here in DC yet. On October 27, 2005, they voted for a smoking ban to start in January 2007. So, I suppose the stuff about business actually increasing in these smoke free DC bars must be made up, since they certainly aren't smoke free.

Sincerely,
A DC smoker.
on Nov 17, 2005
not to mention whether to serve absinthe or laudanum. or to provide a backroom for use by hookers and johns. or another one complete with clean syringes, spoons, water and ties.


Well Kingbee, we are talking about LEGAL substances here. Last I checked, Absinthe, Laudanum, Heroin and prostitution were all illegal. Apparently the whole legal/illegal thing is a bit much for you. ;~D
on Nov 17, 2005
Apparently the whole legal/illegal thing is a bit much for you. ;~D


yeah well it does have a tendency to shift with the wind. tobacco was first made illegal in what's now new england in 1632. for the next 100 years it was criminalized elsewhere. china executed tobacco smokers in the the 1600s.

on the other hand, laws restricting narcotics use first appeared in the early 20th century.

more to the point, yall are up in arms over proprietors' 'rights' to permit illegal smoking in venues where its forbidden.

local government licenses their establishments...just as it does marriages. why are ya cool with one but suffering under the other?
on Nov 17, 2005
Decent point with the timing of the laws. You're right, up until a few decades ago many of what we consider "illicit" today was perfectly legal... and there may be a day when tobacco products are, once again considered "illicit". To tell you the truth, if they banned tobacco products completely, it wouldn't bother me in the least. However, until that day then it should be up to proprietors to decide what legal substances they should and should not allow in their establishments.

That being said, I also said that I am for community standards. So, being consistent, I will say that I am not against communities deciding that smoking in businesses is against their standards. Apparently, according to some of the posters here, their communities have passed ordinances to that effect, and it actually improved business in the area... so the community has spoken. Great! On the other hand, here in Wisconsin, the Fox Valley area governments decided to ban smoking in businesses. The local community has rejected such a ban so strongly that they are willing to drive out of the area. That has, in turn, affected the local tax base that now the governments in the Fox Valley area are trying to make it a state law, "To level the playing field". So the people in government there are saying, "we don't care what the community wants, we will shove this down their throats... and because it has hurt our tax base, we're willing to shove it down the throats of the whole state!

On your other point (about marriage licenses), you are just plain wrong. Marriage licenses may be issued at the local level, but they are issued by the authority of the state... So local ordinances and community standards are meaningless.

Glad you did catch the joke of the rest though. ;~D
on Nov 17, 2005
after all, them pickled eggs gotta be a much worse public health hazard than nicotine, booze, drunken conversation, venereal disease and dope


Man I used to love those pickled eggs
2 Pages1 2