Who says our new Republican majority isn’t capable of bipartisanship? After passing a law that encourages Minnesotans to carry guns (despite the fact that the only people demanding it were apparently carpetbagging NRA lobbyists and the usual exurban crackpots in tinfoil hats), the legislature is now passing a kind of quid pro quo for lefties. Feeling alienated from a government you didn’t elect? Feeling like the only way you can air your complaints is through lawn signage? You may be a good candidate for later bar-times!
It’s astonishing that this proposal, which would have yanked Minnesota into the modern age the first time it came up, oh, like 50 years ago, has taken so long to get serious consideration. (What’s next, car lots open on Sunday? Oh, the depravity.) Minnesota is among the last four states to require bars to close before 2 a.m. The tourism and convention industries have been arguing for decades that our pubescent curfew on nightlife was a repellant to business. While we can think of a few other reasons why Minneapolis might lose out to San Francisco, New York, or Santa Fe, a nice cocktail would certainly help us forget.
We live in difficult times, and they’re taking their toll on good people in powerful positions. Still, maybe a stiff nightcap will only exacerbate the problem. Our old friend Katherine Lanpher would love to forget her little scrape with the law in April, and we would too. All we can say is that the hardest-working woman in broadcast journalism has certainly earned the right to a few kamikazes at the end of each work-week. As far as we’re concerned, the only real crime here is that Bill Kling still hasn’t hired her a driver; we hear the Star Tribune’s Eric Ringham may be available. In fact, he hosted “Mid Morning” the other day, giving the star a well deserved vacation day. We think he’d make a great sidekick, judging by the way he handled calls on the touchy subject of… er, alcohol legislation.
The proposal to loosen up on bars is the perfect antipode to our shiny new conceal-and-carry law: So few people supported the latter, while so few oppose the former. Only a vocal minority argues against 2 a.m. bar time, mostly on some reflexive fear about drunk driving. We don’t get it. If people stay later in order to get drunker, and still drive—which they won’t necessarily do, according to various studies, but bear with us for a moment—it certainly would be to everyone’s advantage for that to happen when there are fewer people on the road, yes?
And another thing: We aren’t at all clear on why lawmakers would abandon the off-sale folks so quickly and decisively. If the main concern about loosening alcohol laws is the car-bar connection, why wouldn’t they encourage more people to imbibe responsibly at home—by making it easier to buy beverages at the package store? Why did they refuse to even consider the idea of extending the mandatory closing time for wine shops? One of the not-very-quaint aspects of life in the Twin Cities, as compared to other major cities, is the clumsy rush to the liquor store, which is often closed before dinner is even over. (On the other hand, it’s pretty encouraging to see that the growler may become legal—allowing takeout of the area’s great brewpub beers. So even if the packie is closed, maybe we’ll be able to run down to Herkimer or Town Hall for a to-go cup of the really good stuff, the way they do out in Oregon and Washington.)
Not to dis Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but the state’s restaurant and bar owners are a pretty muscular bunch with logic and numbers and now the state legislature on their side. Anyway, if we were really serious about putting an end to drinking and driving, then why does every bar around here have a parking lot? That’s a little like having a gun-rack in every car. Hey, wait a minute…
Leave a Reply