The number of 3.2 bars in Minneapolis has dwindled

  • Article by: Bill Ward , Star Tribune
  • Updated: April 17, 2013 - 11:38 PM

Once a gathering spot in many Minneapolis neighborhoods, 3.2 bars are dwindling.

  • 19
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mgmckeApr. 17, 13 8:34 PM

I have great memories of the 3.2% joint up in Pine River about 45 minutes north of Brainerd. My family would stay on Lake Ada at "Old Point Comfort Resort" for a couple weeks every summer. My dad, my brothers and I would shoot pool and drink 3.2% Hamms on rainy days. They were a "beer and set-up joint". Not sure from the article if the MPLS establishments have that possibility. The closest thing I have found in the cities is a little dive named "Windy Acres" on highway 36 in Lake Elmo.

17
0
mchristiApr. 17, 1310:59 PM

So why hasn't the city simply changed the licenses of these places to be the same as any other bar, rather than holding on to special rules for such a small number of establishments?

21
4
crispycrunchApr. 18, 13 6:00 AM

"...The 2005 smoking ban 'knocked the heck out of us.'" As was predicted. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand and it is hard to tell which is more unhealthy. Alcohol is an intoxicating, poisonous drug and it is difficult to find virtue in a law that prevents consenting adults from enjoying smoking tobacco while drinking poison, or that prevents consenting adults from working in such environments. But...the Democratic Party has to "protect" people from themselves, you see. So if you are a bartender or waitress that smokes cigarettes yourself, the Democratic Party must ensure you work in a smoke free environment even if you of your own free will chose to work in a smoky workplace. I can fully understand banning smoking in some places, but cannot society allow consenting adults to gather together and smoke a legal product without the government telling them what to do? Not even in a bar???

18
50
jd55604Apr. 18, 13 9:20 AM

Liquor license laws for private businesses are a relic and should be eliminated. It is not the role of government to determine what is or isn't sinful behavior and then regulate it. Whether I drink or sell a 3.2% or a 32% alcoholic beverage is none of your business.

25
13
noonan22Apr. 18, 13 9:43 AM

It is so fun it my two hometown bars being featured together... Way to go Sunrise and T-Shoppe!!!!

13
0
mvj5Apr. 18, 13 9:52 AM

"...The 2005 smoking ban 'knocked the heck out of us.'" I never understood this argument for struggling businesses. I could understand if the ban was city specific, smokers would just bring their business elsewhere. But when it is state-wide, do smokers really refuse to go out at all unless they can smoke indoors? Where else are they going to go? It seems to me they are just blaming the ban when it is not really the problem.

21
17
realityfirstApr. 18, 1310:43 AM

I don't think these liquor licenses make sense and think they would be allowed to serve whatever beer and wine they want but I also think it's pretty cool that these few places like serving low alcohol beer and want to continue doing it. Along with the history of why they are serving 3.2 at all it's pretty cool that that by not changing their beer they have been able to hold onto their little beer hall community and the past. Seems like the good 'ol days are alive and well.

18
1
kennyrogersApr. 18, 1310:47 AM

Nobody ever got drunk drinking three two beer.

4
22
steavis61067Apr. 18, 1311:25 AM

Ahh, memories of 3.2 blues.

11
2
taftjApr. 18, 1311:48 AM

@mvj5, as a smoker post ban, I do stay home and drink. Rather than go to bars like this, we all go to eachothers homes. The ban didn't affect big chains where everyone goes regardless. However, when 75% of your clientele are regulars, and 75% of them smoke, you've just lost about 60% of your business. So yes, once thriving small business are suffering because of the ban. As a society we have made the decision to harm those number of small busiensses in the name of public health as a whole. That's fine, that's the direction we as a state have decided to go. But I wish smoking ban supporters would at least acknowledge the collateral damage they have caused.

18
6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT