View Full Version : No Smoking
phairestofthemall
08-19-2008, 12:39 AM
I feel the OP on this one a bit- go ahead and cry on my shoulder dude, just make sure you don't get singed by my menthol lol
Technically my city of Dallas is smoke-free, but for whatever reason SC's are exempt. So I can spark freely at work, but get shunted to patios and balconies when I'm out for fun anywhere else in town. I think that's fucked up, simply because I don't think Dallas (or any city for that matter) has the right to mandate that across the board. It is an issue of rights to me, but not MY rights, rather a proprietor's rights. Call me crazy, but I think that if a biz owner decides they want to allow smoking then they should be able to. And likewise if they don't, that's fine too. And if they wanna cater to both that's fabulous, just provide seperate space and air for each and we'll all wave happily at each other thru the glass. Customers and employees will flock accordingly to wherever they feel best accomodated.
XOXO's to the remaining cities that still adhere to this ridiculously reasonable concept lol
xdamage
08-19-2008, 04:30 AM
.... It is an issue of rights to me, but not MY rights, rather a proprietor's rights. Call me crazy, but I think that if a biz owner decides they want to allow smoking then they should be able to. And likewise if they don't, that's fine too....
The only fuzzy matter then is do the employees have any rights? Say bartenders who historically worked in second hand smoke environments. As a general rule employers are required to provide safe work environments. If the employees feel it is negatively impacting them it gets all messy as to whether or not the employer should be given the right to override them in this matter.
bem401
08-19-2008, 06:17 AM
The only fuzzy matter then is do the employees have any rights? Say bartenders who historically worked in second hand smoke environments. As a general rule employers are required to provide safe work environments. If the employees feel it is negatively impacting them it gets all messy as to whether or not the employer should be given the right to override them in this matter.
When the smoking ban was enacted here a few years back, it was supposedly done for the benefit of employees. Shortly thereafter, most clubs added a non-smoking patio if they didn't already have one. So smokers weren't actually prevented from smoking, just inconvenienced a bit. My thoughts on the matter are that I think the non-smokers' health concerns are more important than the smokers' convenience concerns. If the smokers need the nicotine, let them put on a jacket or raincoat and head outdoors.
xdamage
08-19-2008, 05:50 PM
When the smoking ban was enacted here a few years back, it was supposedly done for the benefit of employees. Shortly thereafter, most clubs added a non-smoking patio if they didn't already have one. So smokers weren't actually prevented from smoking, just inconvenienced a bit. My thoughts on the matter are that I think the non-smokers' health concerns are more important than the smokers' convenience concerns. If the smokers need the nicotine, let them put on a jacket or raincoat and head outdoors.
It is interesting too that it is not even the drug anyone objects too. If someone's vice is nicotine, feel free to ingest it the form of gum, patch, gel. No problem. It's just the matter of ingestion, smoking it, that is what is objected too.
Just to show silly the whole thing is, imagine that you are trying to sleep at night, and your neighbor decides to BBQ right in front of your window or AC air intake so it fills up your house real good with thick smoke.
Can you imagine anyone on the receiving end saying :
"Oh well, it is fine with me because this is a matter of extreme moral concern that he have the freedom to BBQ anywhere he wants whenever he wants"
or
"Keep up those BBQ's mate, it's really important to me that your right to BBQ is protected under the law, no matter that it is filling my house with smoke, making it stink, causing me to cough, causing my eyes to burn, making it hard for me to breath".
Hell no. They would say KNOCK IT OFF MOFO. Your smoke is negatively impacting on me.
VegasPrincess
08-19-2008, 06:50 PM
Honestly, I smoke at work. I do smoke. It is a bar. I would be irrittaed if I could not smoke at work, as would the 75% of customers and dancers who smoke here....
There are other clubs that are non smoking in my area. If you are against smoking, its easy to work in or patronize one of those clubs.
phairestofthemall
08-21-2008, 02:19 AM
The only fuzzy matter then is do the employees have any rights? Say bartenders who historically worked in second hand smoke environments. As a general rule employers are required to provide safe work environments. If the employees feel it is negatively impacting them it gets all messy as to whether or not the employer should be given the right to override them in this matter.
Of course employees have rights, foremost among which is to choose their workplace- nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work somewhere where smoking is allowed. Similarly, nobody from PETA is obliged to work at a steakhouse. And as with ANY job, if policies at work change to something you don't agree with, you leave. Simple.
Also, I fail to see how someone BBQ'ing outside your window has anything whatsoever to do with this. Smoking is a legal activity, whereas trespassing is not, and anyway AC intakes are located inside your home.
bem401
08-21-2008, 05:31 AM
Honestly, I smoke at work. I do smoke. It is a bar. I would be irrittaed if I could not smoke at work, as would the 75% of customers and dancers who smoke here....
There are other clubs that are non smoking in my area. If you are against smoking, its easy to work in or patronize one of those clubs.
Why should the non-smokers be forced to adjust for the smokers? They are not engaging in the objectionable behavior. If someone wants to smoke, they should be the ones to have to make the accomodatiuons.
xdamage
08-21-2008, 06:03 AM
Of course employees have rights, foremost among which is to choose their workplace- nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work somewhere where smoking is allowed. Similarly, nobody from PETA is obliged to work at a steakhouse. And as with ANY job, if policies at work change to something you don't agree with, you leave. Simple.
Ah, I think I know what the problem is.
I won't ask your age, but rather were you of working age say around 20 years ago?
Because people didn't alwyas have "choice". This choice you see now is all new. It exists because of laws that forced those choices. Up until very recently in history people had no choice in the work place, they had to breathe it pretty much everywhere, in the office, in restaurants, on airplanes, while shopping, etc. Not just adults either but kids too.
If you see the situation only from how it is now in history then you miss that the "choice" has only come about because the majority finally stood up and said enough, and had to fight for it. Proprietors would have never agreed to it on their own because they were all afraid their businesses would collapse due to competition.
Also, I fail to see how someone BBQ'ing outside your window has anything whatsoever to do with this. Smoking is a legal activity, whereas trespassing is not, and anyway AC intakes are located inside your home.
It's called a thought experiment. Imagine if you will that your property line is 3 feet wide and the wind is blowing it into your window or AC inlet. My AC inlet is the heatpump outside.
BBQing is legal too. People do have rights to have their private bodies protected just like they have rights to have their private property protected. Ttrespassing on my LUNGS, EYES, and BODY is NOT okay with me. If there aren't yet laws, then there should be that protect my private body from other's activities.
But the problem here is you didn't say yes that is FiNE with me if their smoke invades your home. You said everything else but.
From that I conclude you are grasping at straws here and you really wouldn't think it was okay.
There is nothing wrong with that, but that is people. We want what we want. We want rules and situations that benefit us, and we tend not to care much if it negatively affects others.
Thus many smokers just don't care that their smoking impacts negatively o others. That's fine, but it doesn't need to be painted as some god given right and a moral issue. Non-smokers want what they want too. If the two groups can't agree, then in a democracy typically the majority wins.
In it's logical conclusion then , using your own logic..
"OF course smokers have rights, foremost among which is to choose their workplace or not to work at all and live as homeless people - nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to work somewhere where smoking is NOT allowed. If policies at work change to something you don't agree with, you leave. Simple.
SexyJess
08-21-2008, 08:26 AM
Best insightful responce to this topic by far, Thelayre and Doc-Cat. I'm not trying to argue if smoking is good or bad, no it's bad, and I don't smoke in my house;but I feel that a strip club should be a place where one could let loose and be free. I'm not a big smoker and it still blows that I can't have the same atmosphere that I am accustomed to and enjoy. }:D
You wouldn't smoke in your own home, but you'd smoke around so many other people in an enclosed area? So you're too good to breathe in your own smoke on a daily basis, but other customers and dancers aren't? And you're upset simply because you have to change your habits slightly? Wow.... selfish. Instead of telling us to go strip in a health club, try coming up with a logical argument for smoking indoors and breathing that shit on us.... but you won't, because there isn't one. Smoking indoors is disgusting, harmful and wrong, plain and simple.
Passenger
08-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Why should the non-smokers be forced to adjust for the smokers? They are not engaging in the objectionable behavior. If someone wants to smoke, they should be the ones to have to make the accomodatiuons.
Wait a minute, it almost sounds as though you're passing judgement on smokers. Being a non-smoker doesn't make you any better than being a smoker, and has anyone stopped to consider that no one forces dancers to do this job. A job in a bar, where up until the last ten years or so it was commonly accepted that it would be a smoke filled environment.
As a dancer you consider the risks (or at least you should), and make your choices accordingly. I'm not saying one way is better than the other...I'm just saying that it is asinine to blame others for the consequences of your decisions.
doc-catfish
08-21-2008, 01:26 PM
Wait a minute, it almost sounds as though you're passing judgement on smokers. Being a non-smoker doesn't make you any better than being a smoker,
This has nothing to do with passing judgment. Last I checked, not smoking around smokers didn't irritate smokers, made their clothes stink or had any potential negative consequences on the smokers health.
and has anyone stopped to consider that no one forces dancers to do this job.
No one forces coal miners, police officers, or highway workers to do their jobs, and deal with the occupational hazards that come with them either. But there's a slight difference in those occupational hazards versus dealing with smokers in a bar or club. In the former, the risk is to some degree unavoidable, in the latter, the risk doesn't have to be there, so why not get rid of it?
A job in a bar, where up until the last ten years or so it was commonly accepted that it would be a smoke filled environment.
And sixty years ago in some parts of the U.S., it was commonly accepted that non-whites had to use a separate entrance, or sit in separate seats to get into most public places, if they were even allowed in at all. But hey, times change, and we don't live in the past.
You know, the only tangent of this whole argument in favor of smoking that I might agree with is that not allowing smoking would somehow hurt the business of these bars and clubs, but in the few smoke free locales I've been, that just doesn't seem to be the case. People have learned to adapt.
Perry
08-21-2008, 10:21 PM
Some days I think the only reason I dance is because I can smoke and drink at work. I'd leave a non-smoking club, pronto.
VegasPrincess
08-21-2008, 10:25 PM
Why should the non-smokers be forced to adjust for the smokers? They are not engaging in the objectionable behavior. If someone wants to smoke, they should be the ones to have to make the accomodatiuons.
The issue is simple: if people want to engage in a legal activity in a private enviornment, they should be able to. Plus, up til now, bars have always been smoking....in addition to that, you don't HAVE To go to a bar. I don't like country music. I don't have to go to a country western bar.
Name calling aside, SexyJess the reason I don't smoke in my house is because I rarely smoke. It's the place and atmosphere that trigger my wanting to light one up. I rarely eat cotton-candy but at certain places like a carnival or circus I would like to have that option. I know eating cotton-candy does no harm to others, and that is a very valid point that I have to agree with, but eating cotton-candy is not at all good for the health of those who enjoy it. Should we pass sweeping new State and Federal laws that protect ourselves from eating things that are not healthy? Yes twenty years ago no one would believed that it would be illegal to light up in a bar. So in twenty more years is it so far fetched to think that our government dictate what you can or can not eat. The reason being that all the fat slobs out there are raising my health insurance costs, and that hurts me. Lets make these people exorcise, by then we will be able to monitor them,
and all their lifestyles, so we can all be happy. Don't think that my "thought expreiment" is so far fetched, I may even be a veteran member on this website by then. Ok, no more sarcasm, do we really want a Government to make such kinds of broadstroke decisions in our lives? Again I am happy for those who now benefit from these new laws. But ask youselves, at what cost. Our government is quick at taking away peoples rights, but very slow at giving people their rights, and it's the same with all kinds of governments. Look at how hard and long the civil rights people had to fight aginst the government just to to become equal. This is a slippery slope when the majority has the right to dictate the terms and rights of the minority. To put it in an eggshell, there should be as many smoke free clubs and bars as people wish to open go to as possible, but to take away the right of an owner to allow smoking in his bar, by a state law is just wrong!!
xdamage
08-22-2008, 02:08 AM
...Should we pass sweeping new State and Federal laws that protect ourselves from eating things that are not healthy? Yes twenty years ago no one would believed that it would be illegal to light up in a bar. So in twenty more years is it so far fetched to think that our government dictate what you can or can not eat.
The FDA has existed for a long time now and has been regulating food and drugs for a long time.
Ok, no more sarcasm, do we really want a Government to make such kinds of broadstroke decisions in our lives? Again I am happy for those who now benefit from these new laws. But ask youselves, at what cost. ...
This is the boogey man "Government" argument which appeals to our fear of Governments taking over our lives. It is also a major over simplification.
Our Government is people. While it is true that people require checks and balances because people can abuse power, our society has endless laws including:
o Laws so that people can get along with each other.
o Laws so that peddlers who want to make money, no matter the expense to others, do not have complete free reign to sell products that harm the society as a whole.
Hence heroin which was once being used legally has since become illegal.
And it is not just our Government but around the globe advanced societies have restrictions on recreational drugs for the same reasons. The FDA is now around 100 year old. Our society realized long ago that not every product that people want to peddle is safe. Peddlers looking to make money on products should not do so if it causes excessive harm to the people in the society.
Most people would whine like children if a peddled product harmed them sooner. They would be like, "why didn't my Government protect me???" Smoking though does it slow so and rewards them with an addiction so they only whine later in life when they become sick.
The air is a shared natural resource. Nobody cares if you want to dose yourself in some other form. They do care that you want to ingest this drug in a form that taints their air. If you want nicotine in a SC, then use it. It is available in patch form, or gum form. But that doesn't mean others around you approve of you tainting their air.
It a simplification to say the Government wants to stop you. It is the other people that live in the same society. Again, Government is just us people. About 20% of the adult population smokes, 1 in 5. That means 4 in 5 do not.
It is the majority of people who also live in the same society as you that are saying "Look, you are tainting the air I have to breathe too, I don't like it, it sucks, and since you won't stop, I am going to lobby for laws to protect MY rights to breathe air free of your poisons."
I can guarantee you that the vast most smokers would whine like children if others around them were tainting the water they had to drink, food they had to eat, or blowing something up into the air they have to breathe that caused them to feel sick, stink, trigger allergies, cause cancer. They would fight to protect themselves.
There is no need to blaim it on the Government. Blaim it on others around you who are sick of you making them sick.
bem401
08-22-2008, 05:25 AM
The issue is simple: if people want to engage in a legal activity in a private enviornment, they should be able to. Plus, up til now, bars have always been smoking....in addition to that, you don't HAVE To go to a bar. I don't like country music. I don't have to go to a country western bar.
First, clubs are not private environments. They are privately-owned establishments open to the public.
Second, just like one doesn't need to go to a bar, people don't need to work in one either if the conditions there are not to their liking. There are plenty of outdoor jobs available for those who can't function without cigs.
Third, not to get personal, but I assume you live in Vegas. My understanding is the temperature rarely drops below fifty, it almost never rains, and it definitely never snows. The smokers around here, with whom I can sympathize a bit, have to endure much worse than Vegas residents to get their fix.
In any event, being in a smoke-filled environment definitely detracts from the enjoyment of non-smokers, to say nothing of the health concerns, and smokers are not prevented from smoking. They just have to step out on the patio, which is sometimes nicer than the club itself, to smoke.
Passenger
08-22-2008, 06:25 AM
This has nothing to do with passing judgment. Last I checked, not smoking around smokers didn't irritate smokers, made their clothes stink or had any potential negative consequences on the smokers health.
No one forces coal miners, police officers, or highway workers to do their jobs, and deal with the occupational hazards that come with them either. But there's a slight difference in those occupational hazards versus dealing with smokers in a bar or club. In the former, the risk is to some degree unavoidable, in the latter, the risk doesn't have to be there, so why not get rid of it?
And sixty years ago in some parts of the U.S., it was commonly accepted that non-whites had to use a separate entrance, or sit in separate seats to get into most public places, if they were even allowed in at all. But hey, times change, and we don't live in the past.
You know, the only tangent of this whole argument in favor of smoking that I might agree with is that not allowing smoking would somehow hurt the business of these bars and clubs, but in the few smoke free locales I've been, that just doesn't seem to be the case. People have learned to adapt.
Interestingly enough, you skipped over the part where I stated that you asses the risks and make your choices accordingly. It's a matter of choice, and blaming other people for the consequences of YOUR choices is ultimately ridiculous.
60 years ago it wasn't a matter of choice, and frankly I see a vast difference between the legality of being able to smoke in a bar and racism...the two don't relate to each other at all.
I am a smoker, and honestly I am not bothered by smoking bans in certain places. The first strip club I ever set foot in was in California, and smoking was not allowed....it didn't bother me then, and when they enacted the smoking ban in certain public places in Florida I didn't really care either. I can see both sides of the coin. I choose to smoke, and often go into places where it is not allowed...that is my choice, and I just deal with it. As a non-smoker, if you choose to patronize an establishment where smoking is allowed....you've made YOUR choice, and have to deal with it accordingly.
I believe eventually smoking bans will be pretty much everywhere...I saw it happen in Nevada in the restaurants, and frankly I didn't think the land of drinking, gambling, legalized prostitution, and yes...smoking would ever enact the ban. The only part of your response that is even logical is, "People will adapt." Of course they will, but what gives anyone the right to stand on the "moral" high ground simply because they don't smoke?
xdamage
08-22-2008, 02:58 PM
There is something to be said for giving people a choice to run a smoking-allowed establishment.
The hard part was/is that bar, club, and restaurant owners thought their business would drop dramatically. It was/is a game of chicken because nobody wants to be the first to try it because they all worry that if they go first, their smoking customers will simply go across the street. If the law forces everyone, then that point becomes moot and maybe customers won't show up, but OTOH they won't simply go across the street and spend their money elsewhere.
Restaurants are a bit easier to legislate since it is clearer that a business focused on selling food is not specifically tied to smoking. Bar-only establishments are less clear because historically they have been heavily associated with smoking.
It is even probably true that while the USA's general demographics are 20% smokers, 80% not (not including children), that the proportions are different in your average bar. That makes for a stronger argument that it should be up to the owner to decide.
I do think however I'd like to see it not be quit that easy. I have a half an idea...
The idea is , if we allow proprietors the freedom to choose, we should also strongly consider allowing insurance companies and maybe even the US tax payer more freedom to choose whether or not they want to pay for the illnesses that it causes. I'm not quite sure how it would work, but it is interesting to think what-if we said it is legal, but the overwhelming evidence is that it is also harmful. One should be able to assume the risk, but also others in society should be able to decide not to pay for their (later) medical bills that are likely attributable to smoking.
Jay Zeno
08-22-2008, 03:09 PM
Ten years ago, I got overwhelmed by smoke in the bar. I was unhappy.
Today, I don't. I am happier.
There's no constitutional or inherent right to smoke, either absolutely or in any particular place. And I'm not going to feel bad about others for not being able to blow it my way more often. You can't talk me into feeling bad about it.
Arizona_Angel
08-25-2008, 07:42 PM
I know in IL it is having a hell of an effect on the casinos (business is down) and they don't like that as they get revenue from the riverboats. So I thought that they were thinking of repealing it? I may be wrong. But I know people that go to Wisconsin (I am only about 45 minutes from the border) so they can drink, smoke and watch naked girlies.
I really don't feel like debating the topic of second hand smoke ever again in my lifetime so I will pretty much leave it at that. ;)
Luke34
08-26-2008, 01:59 AM
I know in IL it is having a hell of an effect on the casinos (business is down) and they don't like that as they get revenue from the riverboats. So I thought that they were thinking of repealing it? I may be wrong. ;)
The ban on smoking had a similar effect initially on revenue of Crown (the casino in Melbourne) which introduced the ban before the other States here. Queensland did their best to postpone the ban but I think it is now a national ban. Smoking keeps a patron at the table or slot machine but often if they take a break they will then leave or realise that they have spent too much. It seems that there are typical traits of a habitual gambler and smoking is one of them.
I used to smoke a pack a day for about 15 years and then I stopped about five years ago and I will never go back. Best thing I did. I am in favour of no smoking in public places.
xdamage
08-26-2008, 03:54 AM
Or some of the down turn in business is due to the economy, and the no smoking laws are coincidental.
For example, Atlantic City (this is before any smoking ban went into effect)
Atlantic City casino profits fall 16.5 percent in 'ugly' quarter
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/186/story/233682.html
"Larry Mullin, president and chief operating officer of Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, said Atlantic City is not the only gaming market dealing with the challenges of the weak economy and high gas prices.
"It's the same all over the country. Every market that has been reporting has had similar results," Mullin said of declining revenue and profits.
With revenue continuing to fall, casinos appear to be trying to fatten the bottom line by ..."
Melonie
08-29-2008, 06:31 AM
again I have held off on commenting so far ...
I won't touch the issue of the legitimacy of second-hand smoke harmfulness claims etc. Whether or not second-hand smoke poses a meaningful health risk or not is irrelevant where strip clubs are concerned. For a fact laws have been enacted in many cities / states that outlaw smoking in strip clubs. And for a fact these laws have had an effect on strip club business levels / earnings potential.
A. some 25% of the population still smokes regularly. However, based on New York statistics at least, guys who smoke comprised significantly MORE than 25% of previous customers at bars, clubs, strip clubs etc. prior to the New York statewide smoking ban. After the statewide smoking ban, guys who smoke comprise significantly LESS than 25% of the current customer base. This means that some percentage of guys who smoke, thus guys who were former strip club customers, no longer go to strip clubs at all. Nobody really knows what percentage of 'lost' customers this represents. Also nobody really knows what percentage of 'lost customer dollars' this represents either, although there is some data that tends to show that smokers typically spent more money at bars, clubs, strip clubs etc. before the smoking ban than non-smokers did.
B. Of the guys who smoke that still patronize strip clubs after the statewide smoking ban, a new business model seems to have developed. Some guys come into the club with the 'plan' of quickly selecting a dancer to spend money on, heading for the private dance area to get several lap dances in a row, and then leaving the club ... all in the space of an hour or so. This limits the amount of money they can / do spend during their hour at ths club as opposed to the 2-3 hour club visits they used to make prior to the smoking ban. This also causes whatever money that is spent during their hour at the club to be concentrated on the selected dancer rather than being spread around among multiple dancers.
C. since the enactment of the statewide smoking ban, it is arguable that there are fewer bachelor parties / large groups of guys patronizing strip clubs. It is also arguable that the number of 'private party' dancer / escort requests has gone up significantly. The theory behind this is that these groups of guys always consist of some amount of smokers ... that the smokers don't / won't hang around strip clubs or bars where they can't smoke the entire time. Thus many formerly 'public' party trips have now been relocated to 'private' venues where all of the guys can smoke / drink / whatever without much concern for law enforcement (of all kinds *wink*wink*).
So yes it is nice to be able to work in a smoke-free club ... but there IS a price attached.
Arguably, when a smoking ban is enacted, a number of financially aggressive dancers will quickly make the transition to becoming 'private party ' dancers / escorts and promoting the 'private party' concept. This will actually result in a significant increase in their income potential, while the income potential for club dancers will decline along with the number of club customers. Of course, this fact / development is hard to quantify and even harder to admit ! Thus explanations invoking a bad economy, high energy prices etc. being the reason for fewer club customers and declining club dancer earnings potential will obviously be invoked. To some degree these explanations do apply. However, there is also the issue that a whole lot of dollars formerly spent in strip clubs will now be spent in 'private party' settings instead as a result of no-smoking laws.
~
threlayer
11-02-2008, 09:18 PM
^^ Is that really happening? Or is it just mostly postulated.
Otoki
11-03-2008, 11:42 PM
I can not get over the fact that you are not allowed to have a smoke while at a stripclub. I never was a big smoker, about 2 packs a month. When I was out at the clubs I used to cut loose and smoke as much as I pleased. I was almost the same way, to a point, about spending my money. Now the whole enviroment has changed. I enjoyed the smell of a smoke filled club or bar way more than lighting one up myself, and now it's all gone. How are you dancers in non-smoking clubs getting along with, or adapting to the new laws? Have your regular customers seem to become less free-spending?
People initially bitched about it when Hennepin county, and later the state of MN, passed the smoking ban. I, personally, love it, because there were a lot of places I wouldn't go because I didn't want to sit in a room full of smoke, especially with the history of lung problems in my family. Now, I am not limited in where I go out, and smokers can still go to all these places, provided they smoke outside.
There was an initial dip in many bars/clubs, but once everyone got their panties unbunched it's pretty much been back to normal (with lots of new customers who avoided the SCs before the ban).
Otoki
11-03-2008, 11:49 PM
And your articles are credible and objective sources I take it? I mean one of them is from a blog. All of them have a pro-smoker agenda.
Look, I hate government intervention as much as anyone else around here. If anything, I think the owners should decide these policies and let the chips fall where they may. I personally think a smoke free main room with a ventilated indoor smoking lounge and two doors between them is the best way to go. That way nobody has to go out in the cold/heat, and I can pass through the entrance without sucking in the pollution.
But this is besides the point. A more generalized reason that smoking restrictions were started in the first place is that its an irritant to non smokers. I mean, I doubt that my neighbor playing his stereo a bit too loud is going to harm me, but yeah he is disrupting the peace for everyone else, hence why we have laws against that sort of thing.
I wish some smokers would see that their absence really isn't costing club owners the business they think, because every smoker customer lost due to a ban is pretty much replaced by a non-smoker who wouldn't come in prior to the ban because it was allowed. And in most situations where bans are in place, there are still means of smokers to get their fix. Lincoln, Nebraska recently added one and I saw at a lot of the bars there last month, there happens to be a congregation of smokers outside the door. Not the most ideal situation, but sounds like they've found a way to reconcile things.
Exactly. Also, the Seville solves this problem by having a fenced-in smoking patio, so you don't walk through smog when entering/leaving the club. It gives guests the option of never encountering cig smoke during their entire time at the club.
Otoki
11-03-2008, 11:51 PM
"Freedom of Expression" is not free when it harms other people. The US Constitution gives no one the right to pollute in a way that harms the "Life" of another. Smokers should go "Pursue" theirr happiness where it doesn't harm anyone else.
Holy shit, I actually agree with you! :O
Otoki
11-03-2008, 11:52 PM
I WISH they didn't allow smoking in my club *sigh*
At least our dressing room is split, (smoking/nonsmoking), with a good section of space & stalls in between....thank God!
Ugh, I remember smoking dressing rooms. *shudder* We were only allowed to eat in the DR, so I usually opted to eat right before and right after work, because i would feel sick eating in a cloud of smog.
Otoki
11-03-2008, 11:54 PM
Yep. Breathing is vital to life, smoking is not.
No sympathy for smokers here.
My money is just as good as ever and I dont have to cough up a lung when I leave the club.
Oh yeh I forgot one other thing, Im glad I no longer have to be careful of careless assholes buring me with cigarettes in crowded clubs and with guys who think it's ok to smoke during a lapdance. I refused to dance for guys until they put out their cigarettes. it's been about a year since the smoking ban here and its great.
OOh, good line. So is the ban in Melbourne only, or all of OZ?
Otoki
11-03-2008, 11:56 PM
Well, yes it is. It is my freedom not to be forced to ingest a carcinogen if I don't want to. It is my freedom, my right, not to have my health and well-being effected by the second-hand smoke that you are puffing into my air space.
You can sit next to me at the bar and drink enough liquor to rot your liver if you want. It doesn't effect me. Wanna eat fast food every night too? No problem dude, they are your arteries and just the smell of a McDonald's cheeseburger, though off-putting, does not effect my health.
But when it comes to butts it is not your right to make me sick simply so you can enjoy killing yourself.
There are still plenty of places you can light up...oh well gee, maybe there actually aren't. Oh well, you can still do it in the privacy of your own home where you are only forcing your friends and family to breath in the smoke...
It makes me wonder if they'll ever pass a law about smoking near kids under a certain age...
Otoki
11-04-2008, 12:14 AM
again I have held off on commenting so far ...
I won't touch the issue of the legitimacy of second-hand smoke harmfulness claims etc. Whether or not second-hand smoke poses a meaningful health risk or not is irrelevant where strip clubs are concerned. For a fact laws have been enacted in many cities / states that outlaw smoking in strip clubs. And for a fact these laws have had an effect on strip club business levels / earnings potential.
A. some 25% of the population still smokes regularly. However, based on New York statistics at least, guys who smoke comprised significantly MORE than 25% of previous customers at bars, clubs, strip clubs etc. prior to the New York statewide smoking ban. After the statewide smoking ban, guys who smoke comprise significantly LESS than 25% of the current customer base. This means that some percentage of guys who smoke, thus guys who were former strip club customers, no longer go to strip clubs at all. Nobody really knows what percentage of 'lost' customers this represents. Also nobody really knows what percentage of 'lost customer dollars' this represents either, although there is some data that tends to show that smokers typically spent more money at bars, clubs, strip clubs etc. before the smoking ban than non-smokers did.
B. Of the guys who smoke that still patronize strip clubs after the statewide smoking ban, a new business model seems to have developed. Some guys come into the club with the 'plan' of quickly selecting a dancer to spend money on, heading for the private dance area to get several lap dances in a row, and then leaving the club ... all in the space of an hour or so. This limits the amount of money they can / do spend during their hour at ths club as opposed to the 2-3 hour club visits they used to make prior to the smoking ban. This also causes whatever money that is spent during their hour at the club to be concentrated on the selected dancer rather than being spread around among multiple dancers.
C. since the enactment of the statewide smoking ban, it is arguable that there are fewer bachelor parties / large groups of guys patronizing strip clubs. It is also arguable that the number of 'private party' dancer / escort requests has gone up significantly. The theory behind this is that these groups of guys always consist of some amount of smokers ... that the smokers don't / won't hang around strip clubs or bars where they can't smoke the entire time. Thus many formerly 'public' party trips have now been relocated to 'private' venues where all of the guys can smoke / drink / whatever without much concern for law enforcement (of all kinds *wink*wink*).
So yes it is nice to be able to work in a smoke-free club ... but there IS a price attached.
Arguably, when a smoking ban is enacted, a number of financially aggressive dancers will quickly make the transition to becoming 'private party ' dancers / escorts and promoting the 'private party' concept. This will actually result in a significant increase in their income potential, while the income potential for club dancers will decline along with the number of club customers. Of course, this fact / development is hard to quantify and even harder to admit ! Thus explanations invoking a bad economy, high energy prices etc. being the reason for fewer club customers and declining club dancer earnings potential will obviously be invoked. To some degree these explanations do apply. However, there is also the issue that a whole lot of dollars formerly spent in strip clubs will now be spent in 'private party' settings instead as a result of no-smoking laws.
~
I'm critical of this. Especially the "guys shortening their visits" bit. MN has had the state-wide smoking ban for over a year, and people have adjusted to stepping outside to smoke. Yes, at first, business dropped. However, after a few months business picked back up (and there were a lot of self-proclaimed new customers who claimed to have stayed away form SCs because of the smoke).
pinkpuff
11-16-2008, 11:36 PM
I can not get over the fact that you are not allowed to have a smoke while at a stripclub. I never was a big smoker, about 2 packs a month. When I was out at the clubs I used to cut loose and smoke as much as I pleased. I was almost the same way, to a point, about spending my money. Now the whole enviroment has changed. I enjoyed the smell of a smoke filled club or bar way more than lighting one up myself, and now it's all gone. How are you dancers in non-smoking clubs getting along with, or adapting to the new laws? Have your regular customers seem to become less free-spending?
um not all of us are smokers so some of us appreciate the fact that smoking is not allowed at strip clubs. the last thing i would want is to sacrifice my health/wellbeing/and lungs by working at a strip club where im constantly breathing in second hand smoke. be a little considerate for other people's health and stop complaining. if you want to give yourself cancer, by all means do it, but some of us want to be healthy.
pinkpuff
11-17-2008, 12:35 AM
You wouldn't smoke in your own home, but you'd smoke around so many other people in an enclosed area? So you're too good to breathe in your own smoke on a daily basis, but other customers and dancers aren't? And you're upset simply because you have to change your habits slightly? Wow.... selfish. Instead of telling us to go strip in a health club, try coming up with a logical argument for smoking indoors and breathing that shit on us.... but you won't, because there isn't one. Smoking indoors is disgusting, harmful and wrong, plain and simple.
smoking in public should just be outlawed period. its polluting the air , if you want to smoke you should be forced to deal with living in a smoke infested house. People have no problem snorting coke or injecting heroin in private so i dont understand why they feel like they should have the right to smoke in public, the same public that other people who dont smoke and actually care about their health have to share with them.
Name calling aside, SexyJess the reason I don't smoke in my house is because I rarely smoke. It's the place and atmosphere that trigger my wanting to light one up. I rarely eat cotton-candy but at certain places like a carnival or circus I would like to have that option. I know eating cotton-candy does no harm to others, and that is a very valid point that I have to agree with, but eating cotton-candy is not at all good for the health of those who enjoy it. Should we pass sweeping new State and Federal laws that protect ourselves from eating things that are not healthy? Yes twenty years ago no one would believed that it would be illegal to light up in a bar. So in twenty more years is it so far fetched to think that our government dictate what you can or can not eat. The reason being that all the fat slobs out there are raising my health insurance costs, and that hurts me. Lets make these people exorcise, by then we will be able to monitor them,
and all their lifestyles, so we can all be happy. Don't think that my "thought expreiment" is so far fetched, I may even be a veteran member on this website by then. Ok, no more sarcasm, do we really want a Government to make such kinds of broadstroke decisions in our lives? Again I am happy for those who now benefit from these new laws. But ask youselves, at what cost. Our government is quick at taking away peoples rights, but very slow at giving people their rights, and it's the same with all kinds of governments. Look at how hard and long the civil rights people had to fight aginst the government just to to become equal. This is a slippery slope when the majority has the right to dictate the terms and rights of the minority. To put it in an eggshell, there should be as many smoke free clubs and bars as people wish to open go to as possible, but to take away the right of an owner to allow smoking in his bar, by a state law is just wrong!!
Though your comparison is ridiculous because smoking affects the health of the people around the smoker, and eating fast food doesnt, i have to say that it wouldnt be so bad if fast food was banned. it does in fact increase our taxes and such and healthy people shouldnt have to pay for the medical bills of impoverished people who chose to eat fast food and thus get sick easier because of it.
Regardless though your comparison is ridiculous. a fast food ban would never happen because of an issue of money. plenty of shit effects other people who are not involved's money and it has never been made illegal. if we are going to get rid of stuff that ups our costs we would be terminating people on welfare, and i just dont see that happening. the government is trying to protect our health, not our money, and i dont remember any laws ever being passed because it protects people from high insurance rates. besides, the gov makes a hugeeee profit off of poisonous food being sold to the public. the choice to eat it is always going to be there and there is always going to be plenty of advertising encouraging the general population to pollute their bodies with chemicals. if there is good money involved in it, its not gonna be banned sorry. insurance cost and people being unhappy with paying high rates and the actual health and wellbeing of individuals are two totally different things.
And smoking is not a "right." You are lucky that it is even legal. It should be outlawed. Drugs like coke and meth cant be injested second hand yet they are illegal. its ridiculous that something as poisonous to people who chose NOT to partake in it, as cigarette smoking is legal.
IMO, if people want to go to a stripclub, they will regardless of the smoking ban. It does get annoying to have to go in and out of the club just to smoke, but smokers should be use to it by now. The winter months doesn't make this any easier, but work has been slow regardless.
It appears that the shock of the smoking ban has worn off, but the effects of a tapped out economy are still being felt. That's our real issue.
All and all, I'm glad that the ban was put into place, I can breathe easier in restaurants, clubs, and at work. It's silly to think that is was okay for me to suffer from second hand smoke. I'm glad that that's no longer an issue.
Nicole0704
11-26-2008, 11:05 AM
I would not choose to work in vet's office if I was terrified of being bitten by a dog. I work in bars knowing that the environment is what it is. I believe people should be able to smoke in bars of all places!! Alot of people don't even smoke unless they're having a drink. Yes, I do believe guys who smoke, whether socially or all the time are more comfortable being able to have a smoke with their drink. And when guys are comfortable in the strip club, they spend money. Just my opinion.
Perry
11-26-2008, 06:40 PM
^ + 1.
Some people need to calm down a take a deep breath.
Otoki
11-27-2008, 11:44 PM
IMO, if people want to go to a stripclub, they will regardless of the smoking ban. It does get annoying to have to go in and out of the club just to smoke, but smokers should be use to it by now. The winter months doesn't make this any easier, but work has been slow regardless.
It appears that the shock of the smoking ban has worn off, but the effects of a tapped out economy are still being felt. That's our real issue.
All and all, I'm glad that the ban was put into place, I can breathe easier in restaurants, clubs, and at work. It's silly to think that is was okay for me to suffer from second hand smoke. I'm glad that that's no longer an issue.
+1
The only people who complained about not smoking recently were dudes who were doing the "what's the most I can get for my $20?" shit. Seriously, the spenders don't seem to care. If they like the girls, they have a good time.
JPremium
11-29-2008, 11:59 AM
Come to Atlanta!
Butrcup98
11-30-2008, 03:43 PM
Being an ex-smoker, I think I would love that! I had to wear contacts every night so that my eyes wouldn't well up with tears from all the smoke.
It sucks for people who do smoke, or enjoy the occasional cig. But I have been so grateful for the non-smoking laws in LA, like in resturants or within so many feet of hospital.
That's one thing I never understood and never did. How can you smoke right in front of a hospital entrance, watching people being wheeled in using oxygen machines?
Otoki
12-01-2008, 04:40 PM
^ + 1.
Some people need to calm down a take a deep breath.
Insert smoking joke here.
I thought that I would get more support on this issue, but instead, I feel like the people on here are out of some Rush Limbough wet dream playbook.. In your defence, I do enjoy actually being able to smell perfume and hair conditioner rather than cigarette smoke. Anyway, it's not as bad as the inital shock, and I do see some positives of the change. I'm just glad to give an opinion and have an idea on where other people stand. Thank-you for your responces, even though I disagree with most, it was nice to view a topic from your angle and probably the more agreed about by all conserv
pixierocksonthepole
12-22-2008, 05:21 AM
I know I am coming in on this totally late but I disagree with this documentation of second hand smoke affecting non-smokers. It does and I am living proof. I grew up in a house where my Dad smoked all the time, caused many horrible ear infections. This was tested by my doctor at the time. Second- I am allergic to nicotine. So as for most people it makes them cough or just a little harder to breath, it causes me some serious pain and sickness. Just because the documentation of cases like mine aren't publicized or easy to find doesn't mean they don't exist.
I was working at the Admiral when the original city limits smoking ban started. It didn't change there. Then I was at Diamonds when it became state wide, that didn't change money for me either. The only thing that changed money for me was my amount of stress and of course our dying economy.
If people want to smoke, by all means enjoi yourself. But please don't infringe on my right to breathe natural cleaner air. I say cleaner because it is obvious in places it's polluted but I prefer if people didn't add to it by smoking in my face.
I used to get sick for weeks on end from men smoking cigars in the club. It could be one man and one cigar and I could avoid that whole side of the club and I would still be sick.
I am so glad they passed the smoking ban. I haven't been sick in almost a year. ^_^
Otoki
12-31-2008, 10:24 AM
^^Thanks for this. I get annoyed when people try to deny any negative effects from second-hand smoke.
However, don't be surprised if someone comes back at your post with something along the lines of "your right to breathe shouldn't trump my "right" to suck ash wherever I please".
pixierocksonthepole
12-31-2008, 03:27 PM
^^ Yeah I have come across that from people before too. I laugh.
If it is that important for them to smoke and die early by all means go ahead lol. I just won't be around. And if it's their right...then why in the world is it getting banned? haha
^_^
sergifed91
01-09-2009, 04:28 PM
I might smoke. but even as a smoker it doesn't kill me to go out side to have a cigerette. The big thing even as a smoker I hate and still hate cigars. There just or worse as cigerette smell and smoke. Shoot! I won't even smoke in my house. I go outside. I don't want to clean the walls or have the furniture smell. same with my car. I won't smoke in it. the fact 9 out of ten times i will have someone in there that doesn't smoke. I might have a right to smoke in my house or car but ALSO people have a right to breathe clean fresh air. a few clubs have found a way to get around the smoking law by putting on an addition with that pumps the smoke and air out and another system that pumps air back into the room or building. which seems to be working here in iowa.