Hooray Private Business!

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:55 pm

A little something to stimulate a discussion about private business rights. My usual bar has recently been getting a great deal of local and national press due to exploiting a loophole in the Minnesota smoking ban. AP was out to interview the owner and several local news channels, radio stations and news papers have made their way through the establishment.

The AP article, featured in the Washington Post

Local coverage from the Star Tribune

Website of the bar with info on the front page

Even as a non-smoker, I fully support this and am glad to see that government isnt able to impose it's will upon private business.

**Sponsor**

by **Champ** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:36 pm

I was under the impression they are going to get that loophole plugged pretty soon, if not already?

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:06 pm

As far as I know, the bars are completely following the law. I think you would have to change the law in order to stop it.

by **Champ** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:32 pm

UofMLaxGoalie11 wrote:As far as I know, the bars are completely following the law. I think you would have to change the law in order to stop it.

Did you read my post?

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:14 pm

Well I was saying that you cant just say "stop that or we will fine you" because they are following the law. You would have to change the laws, typically a time consuming activity. So this will likely be around for at least a few more months, I would expect. Long enough to push into summer, where it isnt as much of an issue to smoke outside.

by **WaterBoy** on Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:41 am

I commend the bar on their careful reading of the law, but as a general rule, one should never underestimate the power of "legislative intent."

Not injecting any personal opinion, but I'd be willing to bet that there is available legislative comment that the ban on smoking in bars is "to protect the workers in the bar from the health hazards of second-hand smoke," or something along those lines.

I would actually think that press coverage would be the last thing that they want, since if it rises to the level of any type of embarassment for the legislature or the state in general... special session, amended statute, closed issue- that is if the health department can't get a temporary injunction off of what they have now. Maybe if I get a little bit ahead of where I should have been a few hours ago with the memo I should be writing right now, I'll actually do some digging into the applicable Minnesota laws.

I thought this one was particularly interesting. Good post.

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:54 am

WaterBoy wrote:I commend the bar on their careful reading of the law, but as a general rule, one should never underestimate the power of "legislative intent."

Not injecting any personal opinion, but I'd be willing to bet that there is available legislative comment that the ban on smoking in bars is "to protect the workers in the bar from the health hazards of second-hand smoke," or something along those lines.

I would actually think that press coverage would be the last thing that they want, since if it rises to the level of any type of embarassment for the legislature or the state in general... special session, amended statute, closed issue- that is if the health department can't get a temporary injunction off of what they have now. Maybe if I get a little bit ahead of where I should have been a few hours ago with the memo I should be writing right now, I'll actually do some digging into the applicable Minnesota laws.

I thought this one was particularly interesting. Good post.

One of the security guys was in tonight and had a letter from the Minnesota Department of Health or something like that, saying that the "theater nights" were not considered to be in accordance with the law and bars participating in them can be fined $10,000. They are still putting them on. The AP story was released worldwide, and I'm pretty sure the owner has done interviews for several international media sources. I know that the story was picked up by the BBC, another London news outlet, Australian news and in several different countries. The day the story came out, the phones were apparently off the hook, mainly from supporters of the cause. I really hope this becomes a huge uprising from the citizens and business owners, causing the legislation to change. I hope I could get extra credit in my political science class if I get the owner to talk to my class if something major comes from this.

by **Champ** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:34 pm

If I was a bar owner I'd be so mad if a bar near me was suddenly able to have smokers in it.

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:43 pm

Champ wrote:If I was a bar owner I'd be so mad if a bar near me was suddenly able to have smokers in it.

Well you might attract the non-smoking crowd. Thats the thing about competitive business. It allows for more diverse options, rather than being forced to be uniform. And besides, here in the Twin Cities (especially the eastern parts, where The Rock is) this is pushing business out of Minnesota and into Wisconsin. There are several people driving 45 mins just to get to a bar they can smoke in, rather than staying around their areas, and more importantly, in their state.

by **Jac Coyne** on Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:31 pm

UofMLaxGoalie11 wrote:There are several people driving 45 mins just to get to a bar they can smoke in, rather than staying around their areas, and more importantly, in their state.

Pack of smokes - $5
Gas for roundtrip - $25
24 hours in the clink, numerous alcohol abuse classes, and six-months suspended lisence for DUI - priceless

by **WaterBoy** on Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:18 am

According to the bar's website (posted at the top), the bar has decided to stop holding theater nights based upon pressure from the city attorney. Apparently the city attorney has threatened to put the bar's liqour license up for review if they didn't stop, based upon pressure that the city attorney received from the MN Health Department.

And the nitty gritty shows it's head.

I'm sure that there's even more that's impliedly threatened once the Health Department starts to ramp up pressure- like compliance inspections every thirty minutes, or undercover liquor law compliance checks.

In general, once an agency wants to find something wrong, they probably can- which is not to say that the bar has done anything intentionally wrong, but if there's enough political pressure, the state probably has the clout to make the continuance cause more problems for the bar owners than a cessation. On grind the gears.

by **Champ** on Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:08 pm

UofMLaxGoalie11 wrote:
Champ wrote:If I was a bar owner I'd be so mad if a bar near me was suddenly able to have smokers in it.

Well you might attract the non-smoking crowd. Thats the thing about competitive business. It allows for more diverse options, rather than being forced to be uniform. And besides, here in the Twin Cities (especially the eastern parts, where The Rock is) this is pushing business out of Minnesota and into Wisconsin. There are several people driving 45 mins just to get to a bar they can smoke in, rather than staying around their areas, and more importantly, in their state.

How many bars were non-smoking before the ban? Exactly, there is a reason why they were all smoking.

I'm just saying, the Rock is pulling a ton of customers because of this exemption they found and I'd be pissed.

I feel bad for the people that are so addicted they need to drive over an hour round trip to have a cigarette while they drink in a public place, instead of going outside.

by **UofMLaxGoalie11** on Sat Mar 15, 2008 4:50 pm

Champ wrote:
UofMLaxGoalie11 wrote:
Champ wrote:If I was a bar owner I'd be so mad if a bar near me was suddenly able to have smokers in it.

Well you might attract the non-smoking crowd. Thats the thing about competitive business. It allows for more diverse options, rather than being forced to be uniform. And besides, here in the Twin Cities (especially the eastern parts, where The Rock is) this is pushing business out of Minnesota and into Wisconsin. There are several people driving 45 mins just to get to a bar they can smoke in, rather than staying around their areas, and more importantly, in their state.

How many bars were non-smoking before the ban? Exactly, there is a reason why they were all smoking.

What about the restaurants with fairly well known bar scenes? Fridays, Buffalo Wild Wings, Bennigans. Anything like that was non-smoking but still lots of fun.

And the owner, Brian, was on one of the local news stations last night. Since The Rock has been the bar most synonymous with the "theater nights", they are under increased pressure from the authorities to stop. But he said that if enforcement of other local bars does not change, he will go back to doing them again. I wish they had the video online, or even a transcript of what was said, but this is the closest I could find.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S369859.shtml