Kids in bars

In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kulish complains (light-heartedly) about kids in bars (and about smoking bans): 

Call me a hard-liner or a party pooper, but I say 21 means 21. No more babies in bars.

Obviously, today's working parents are eager to spend a little quality time with their youngsters, and we're used to seeing small fry everywhere from fancy restaurants to art gallery openings. I've adjusted to the idea that many otherwise reasonable people believe there's no point in paying for a baby sitter on movie night when their toddler can entertain himself by kicking the back of my chair.

But bars? A group of 19-year-olds would be stopped at the door, but no one has the guts to card the really little ones. I blame the law of unintended consequences — in this case, the no-smoking movement. Sure, cigarettes are a public health problem. But the smoky bar filled with unhealthy grown-ups at least felt like a bar. Now, the local gin joints look more like jungle gyms.

It was the bartenders' exposure to secondhand smoke that inspired the tobacco ban. Now their lungs are presumably healthier. But they are saddled with a raft of tiny patrons who never buy drinks. They bring their own bottles. And they never tip.

Now, I couldn't agree more that too many parents fail to exercise good judgment when it comes to bringing kids to restaurants, movie houses, etc.  That said, I'm for -- within reason -- kids in bars.  (I'm not talking about dance clubs and Hooters, obviously).  It seems to me that, all things considered, it would be better -- for many reasons -- for the places where we eat, drink, socialize, and watch football to be less age-segregated than they are now.  This place, in downtown South Bend (where my kids can play board games and listen to live music while I drink Guinness), is an example of what I have in mind.