Just A Bar

Craig Westover does something the the Strib and PiPress seem unable to; puts a human face on the Twin Cities' smoking bans.

The column's from last week. So what? It's still important this week.

You'd have to be blind - or willfully ignorant, and supernaturally arrogant - not to admit that the smoking ban, in and of itself, is killing bars in the Twin Cities.

Westover:

For April, May and June, charitable gambling receipts in smoke-free Hennepin County are down more than $10 million year-to-year, according to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. After prizes, expenses and taxes, that's close to $500,000 that will not be funneled to local youth and civic organizations, veterans and senior citizens.

"Pretty quiet," I note to Greg Kubik, the bartender, cook, server — the only employee on duty. Staff has been laid off and hours cut since the smoking ban. Greg has worked at Stasiu's since the first keg was tapped 30 years ago.

"Wasn't always like this," he said. "Even on weekdays about half the tables were full. Both pool tables were usually busy." He gestures over the relatively empty room. "This is about it now."

Craig notes:

Smoking ban proponents point to aggregate industry numbers showing that hospitality taxes have not decreased after smoking bans were enacted. As long as government gets theirs, all is right with the world. That Stasiu's is virtually empty, that more than 20 such taverns have closed since the smoking ban, is inconsequential to the powerful, the influential and the arrogant.

Stasiu's is just one inconsequential working class bar; Jerry, Greg and Stasiu's patrons just inconsequential working class stiffs. Says the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco, 74 percent of Minnesotans favor smoking bans. Is that a surprise? When at no cost a majority can impose its whim on a despised minority, why not? Individual property rights and freedom of choice are just inconsequential rhetoric in the collective vision of a smoke-free Minnesota.

Speaking of "at no cost" - I'd like to go back to that "74 percent" number. I'm sure the survey question was something like "Do you favor banning smoking in public places?" Even I'd probably be favorable to the idea; I don't smoke, other than the odd cigar.

But if you phrased it "Would you favor banning smoking in privately-owned bars and restaurants, knowing that such a ban would put hundreds of bartenders, waitstaff, cooks and other people out of work", I wonder what the number would be?

Oh, among the professionally indignant, the Jeanne Weigums of the world, the ones whose jobs don't depend on tips, it'd probably still pass.

The rest of us?

Posted by Mitch at September 20, 2005 05:12 AM | TrackBack