Smoking Bans
The Twin Cities' push to make life better through more laws continues apace, as metro cities ban smoking in bars.
The ban is having its desired effect among the populace:
Smoker Blake Drussendorf laughs.
"We just ran over from Minneapolis to get away from the Minneapolis scene to come over here," he says, his cigarette nearly down to the filter. "We got here just five minutes ago."
He finishes it before the bartender has to say anything.
"What can we do?" Drussendorf says. "We're not in charge.
Which is, indeed, what these laws are all about; showing the peasants who's the boss. "We
can ban your voluntary petty vices, which take place with your own adult consent, in public places that nobody is required to go to -
just try to stop us!
Ramsey County, being vastly more sensible than Hennepin (motto: "Better life through more law!") has at least given bars a means of exempting themselves from the ban:
Bars where liquor sales account for more than 50 percent of net sales. Restaurants may set up separate bar areas if they are closed off from eating areas, have a separate liquor license and have a separate ventilation system.
I'm guessing the HVAC sales community was behind the ban.
Anyway - here are the exempted bars. To be exempted, a bar's "liquor sales account for more than 50 percent of net sales."
This is anectdotal, but when I was working in bars, it always seemed lie the heaviest smokers were also the heaviest drinkers. So what we have here is this; Ramsey County ensures that the die-hard smokers, and possibly heaviest drinkers, must go to drink and smoke where no food is available, ensuring they get drunk faster and stay drunk longer, guaranteeing more driving while intoxicated. Naturally, that means more revenue for...none other than Ramsey County.
I've never smoked in my life, other than the very rare cigar. I won't miss smoke in bars (although I'm rarely in them).
But this is a stupid government trend, in a metro area that has led the nation in stupid government trends.
Posted by Mitch at
March 31, 2005 06:07 AM
| TrackBack
They ain't leading in this one, obviously.
Here in the Atlanta area, a country/western mega-bar was being built in suburban Gwinnett County. The county insisted on millions of dollars in ventilation system upgrades since smoking would take place there.
Then the county enacted an indoor smoking ban. The newly-opened bar approached the county, ventilation system invoices in hand, and asked for an exemption. Refused, naturally.
The only argument that I find anywhere near compelling is that smokey bars expose staff to second-hand smoke. Of course, nobody is forced to work in these places...maybe only smokers should work in bars.
Posted by: Brian Jones at March 31, 2005 06:36 AMBoy are the bars in Washington, Dakota and Anoka counties going to clean up.
Hope downtown Minneapolis business dies and them pinkos fascists rue the day they did this.
Can we have the equivalent coming in the "ban" counties of speakeasies or smoke-easies...blind pigs and a little eyehole on the door and a password...pssst...Mitch sent me.
Look forward to a nice black market trade in lung cookies and afterhour smoking establishments...ain't enough cops to enforce it. They enforce the drug laws...gangs are going to make a killing in ciggies and places to smoke them (hopefully with suitable liquid refreshments).
Ahhhh....Minneapolis...we can get you all the dope you want, but God help you if you light a ciggie in public....warp the little kiddies minds.
Time to logroller, bugger and confuse the government at every turn...this is pure new age fascism!!
Posted by: Greg at March 31, 2005 08:18 AMThis is one of those issues where I have to claim hypocrisy. Here in Rochester, smoking is banned in bars (those that sell more food than booze) throughout Olmsted County and has been for a couple of years. I don't agree with the heavy hand of government dictating this, but damn it, it sure is nice going to a bar and not stinking like tar when I leave.
Posted by: Ryan at March 31, 2005 10:15 AM1. These are private establishments open to the public, not public places.
2. If there were a market for non-smoking bars, there would be non-smoking bars, and all the non-smokers could vote with their dollars and go to them.
3. Usually, the argument for mandating smoke-free bars is the health of employees and patrons, yet there is not one single study available to prove that second-hand smoke is harmful. Try and get a government wanker to show you the study.
But, you know, government has to at least look like it's doing something, or the voters would realize how useless most of it is.
Posted by: William Young at March 31, 2005 02:13 PMSmoking bans are all the more abusive when you find out that the government justification...a health hazard....is proven false by the city of St. Louis Park, MN. Health Dept tests. Actual secondhand smoke hazard is 150 times below OSHA guidelines.
http://fightcityhall.net/_wsn/page2.html
Science is great, unless you're another government attempting to mandate a smoking ban from here on out. We only discovered this info. 2/18/05, too late to stop county bans, but early enough to stop the state ban.
Posted by: marcus aurelius at April 3, 2005 11:01 AMRyan from Rochester is right about the odor of secondhand smoke, but like the other posters, misses the point behind the common-sense ordinances completely.
Simply stated, this is a response to the proven health risks of secondhand smoke. This is about offering blue-collar workers in Minnesota the same rights to breathe safe air on the job that office, government and retail workers now enjoy.
I have already been to a number of newly smokefree places, including the Bloomington VFW and the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post. I encourage all of you to do the same -- especially visiting the service clubs.
Please feel free to visit our website (www.alamn.org) or our blog for the facts on secondhand smoke in Minnesota workplaces.
Posted by: ALAMN at April 3, 2005 09:17 PMALAMN,
2004 St. Louis Park study says all you need to know. 150 times safer tHan OSHA regulations.
http://fightcityhall.net/_wsn/page2.html
Posted by: marcus aurelius at April 4, 2005 04:30 PMIm so happy that there's a ban. It's great that I don't have to smell when ever I go some where now. On top of that the obvious health risks of second hand smoke has gone way down. If people want to smoke they have the right to go smoke where it wont effect other people.
Posted by: Tom at November 30, 2005 04:30 PMDental Plan the best dental plans on the web - http://www.bestdentalplans.biz
Posted by: Dental Plan at December 4, 2005 09:02 AM