Log in

View Full Version : Smoking bans...will they kill the clubs or be a good thing?



Pages : 1 [2]

Bob_Loblaw
11-12-2006, 09:10 PM
Vancouver instituted a ban a few years back and it was met with the same arguments you see here. After a few weeks, it became a non-issue and there really was no negative effect to the bottom line of businesses in the long term. It was also recently announced that by 2008, all smoking rooms in bars, clubs and restaurants will be a thing of the past as well. There has been very little debate this time around.

evan_essence
11-12-2006, 10:19 PM
Not conveniently, at least not in Ontario. In Ontario you actually have to BE a private club - you can't just put it in the title, and one of the (admittedly flexible) criteria is that you should have a selective membership process. The Eagles do; malls and strip clubs don't. Just one example. A contrasting example: http://kutv.com/localbusiness/local_story_056123312.html

So really, end of debate about whether it can be done because it IS being done somewhere (or perhaps WAS being done, that article's a few months old). As we both agree, it's a matter of arbitrary criteria, and as this example shows, it's a matter of writing those criteria into a state law. It has nothing to do with EOE or other anti-discrimination law because such an establishment wouldn't be exempt from those. (And to be clear about my bringing up this example, I think it's far more logical to allow a strip club to be classified this way if it wishes than a restaurant/bar like in Utah; that's just, well um, anachronistic. Yeesh.)

In fact, I'll conceed that, although this type of operation traditionally has been called a private club, it isn't really; I now realize that's a bit of a misnomer. After reading more about it (shame on you for making me do RESEARCH, f*ck!), I realize that the Eagles club has some fundamental differences; it's not only non-profit but also is controlled by its members, not by an owner. The definition of "private club" in my suggestion is simply a certain class of business which meets certain criteria (in Utah's case, serving demon liquor) and which is allowed to exempt itself from certain state laws (such as an alcohol ban) that other businesses have to follow.

-Ev

xdamage
11-12-2006, 11:10 PM
You could not be more wrong in your analysis. The reason why smoking bans are a necessay evil is not because only "dense smokers" don't get it, it's because the vast majority of smokers could not care less about how their smoke bothers others.


I disagree. Or rather we agree, but you misunderstood.

By "dense" I meant too dense to know that their second hand smoke annoys others.

I think most smokers get that their second smoke annoys others, I just think that they don't care. If it was simply that they don't get it, then they should all be thanking us for letting them know how much it sucks, and voting for the public smoking bans themselves. But that's not at all why smokers are fighting the ban for. They are fighting over issues like rights, and none that I know argue that second hand smoke isn't annoying to non-smokers.

No, it's quite clear to me that the vast majority of smokers have heard that message somewhere along the way, your smoke is annoying. They just don't care enough to stop.

You even said it yourself "I looked at him, and he just gave me a "fuck you, what you are going to do about it" glare back at me. " - you can bet he knew his smoke was annoying you, he isn't so dense he doesn't get that, he just doesn't give a damn.

Remember, I don't think people are particularly altruistic by nature. They'll tend to do what benefits them if they can. It's not that they don't get that their behavior is negative to others, it's just that when they have to choose between what they want and what others want, most people will tend to choose what they want.

But we do agree on the final point, Viva le smoking bans!

Jenny
11-13-2006, 04:59 AM
A contrasting example: http://kutv.com/localbusiness/local_story_056123312.html

So really, end of debate about whether it can be done because it IS being done somewhere (or perhaps WAS being done, that article's a few months old).
Weellll... the entire contention in the article was that the "private clubs" were mostly just private in name only; that is, they are essentially public establishments falsely labelling themselves as private, Utah being apparently prepared to let it ride.


As we both agree, it's a matter of arbitrary criteria, and as this example shows, it's a matter of writing those criteria into a state law. It has nothing to do with EOE or other anti-discrimination law because such an establishment wouldn't be exempt from those.
I suppose you could actually write local legislation designated strip clubs (or for that matter, malls) as another kind of establishment - however, that would require the will to exempt strip clubs from anti-smoking bans. It doesn't explain why they should be. However I didn't notice anything in the article that would indicate that anti-discrimination laws applied in private clubs - did I not read carefully enough?


In fact, I'll conceed that, although this type of operation traditionally has been called a private club, it isn't really; I now realize that's a bit of a misnomer. After reading more about it (shame on you for making me do RESEARCH, f*ck!), I realize that the Eagles club has some fundamental differences; it's not only non-profit but also is controlled by its members, not by an owner. The definition of "private club" in my suggestion is simply a certain class of business which meets certain criteria (in Utah's case, serving demon liquor) and which is allowed to exempt itself from certain state laws (such as an alcohol ban) that other businesses have to follow.

-Ev
Certainly. However, in Utah it simply behooved local enforcement/regulators to let the fake private club paradigm ride. I don't see how that presents a compelling reason to exempt strip clubs?
Oh, Ev. It pains me to disagree with you. It really does.

evan_essence
11-13-2006, 09:23 PM
I suppose you could actually write local legislation designated strip clubs (or for that matter, malls) as another kind of establishment - however, that would require the will to exempt strip clubs from anti-smoking bans. It doesn't explain why they should be. However I didn't notice anything in the article that would indicate that anti-discrimination laws applied in private clubs - did I not read carefully enough?Oh, I saw some other web page explaining federal anti-discrimination laws as applied to private clubs, and basically, these clubs wouldn't qualify for exemption because they don't meet the definition of a true private club. They're privately owned businesses; a real private club is not. Plus, even in true private clubs, the extent of discrimination has been narrowed by court decisions.


Certainly. However, in Utah it simply behooved local enforcement/regulators to let the fake private club paradigm ride. I don't see how that presents a compelling reason to exempt strip clubs?I don't know that they let the fake ride; they carved out certain criteria that they wanted establishments serving liquor to meet in order to set them apart from more traditional establishments. I suppose they felt that would keep an unsuspecting Mormon from accidentally walking into a bar without a doublecheck of membership at the door.

Compelling? I wasn't aware that I was required to present nothing less than compelling. In that case, I'm defeated because everyone's already made their mind up anyway. I was only suggesting a mechanism for allowing businesses to exempt themselves. My view of the strip club business model is that they're supposed to promote personal vices, not throttle them back. My view of the role of government is libertarian to the point that I don't want my government to be so inflexible and intrusive that it prohibits a personal vice to take place wherever all adults present have consented to it. For instance, if a group of smokers wanted to create a business such as a smoking parlor, bar or strip club where smoking was permitted and they decided to hire only smokers (similar to how Hooters can legally hire only female waitresses) so as not to expose nonsmokers, I think it's overly instrusive for the government to say, no, there's no legal way to do that.

-Ev

Smokeless
11-14-2006, 12:10 AM
Colorado passed a ban that went into effect July 1. Some Denver clubs were exempted as "cigar bars" but most clubs in the state didn't fit under the grandfather clause. Those exempted have been doing a land office business. But those who haven't been exempted are not exactly hurting. Of course, several of those are in communities which instituted a (partial) ban long ago.

At the Bustop in Boulder, there was a smoking lounge in the topless side before the state ban. One of the 3 topless stages was in there, and about 20-30% of the crowd usually hung out there. Now it is dark, sort of a quiet pool lounge without the stage, but the total crowd on any night doesn't seem to be that much different than before. The nude side of the club was always smoke-free.

Down in Longmont, Bella's tried to get around the smoking ban by transforming itself into a private club, but it didn't work. The courts ruled that they could not avoid the ban as a private club. I never got there while there was still smoking, but I've asked staff there, and they have said the crowd as a bit heavier with smoking, but not that much different without it. Weekends are still pretty popular. Earlier, when the City of Longmont instituted a total ban, there was a period when clientele dropped off, but the trend reversed.

Likewise with many other businesses who claimed to need smoking to survive. They mostly observed brief downturns in business which later were reversed. Whether the downturns were because of mid-summer doldrums or because of the ban could never be determined.

Needless to say, I like the smokeless environments. I visited Shotgun Willie's recently, one of the exempt outfits. The smoke level was almost toxic. I finally had to leave. I could detect a residue in my lungs/nostrils for at least a week afterwards.

Smokeless!

Jenny
11-14-2006, 08:41 AM
I don't know that they let the fake ride; they carved out certain criteria that they wanted establishments serving liquor to meet in order to set them apart from more traditional establishments. I suppose they felt that would keep an unsuspecting Mormon from accidentally walking into a bar without a doublecheck of membership at the door.
They may doublecheck a membership; however the membership itself is fairly mechanical. Sort of like going to Costco - you pay, and you get a yearly membership (although the dude in your article said that he enjoyed the privilege of not having serve "every Tom, Dick or Harry" - what did THAT mean?). It is only marginally different than a cover charge (the difference being that you only have to pay it once).


Compelling? I wasn't aware that I was required to present nothing less than compelling.
Nearly compelling? Almost compelling?


I was only suggesting a mechanism for allowing businesses to exempt themselves.
No, I know, but I was saying that regulations are not normally set out with the idea that those people, businesses etc., are regulating can simply opt out at will. Normally there has to be some reasoning behind seeking an exemption. And although sometimes a "good" reason will do, a compelling reason is the best kind.


My view of the strip club business model is that they're supposed to promote personal vices, not throttle them back.
Excuse me? How is looking at my naked body a vice? You just shut up, missy!
Seriously, just because strip clubs are pandering to certain kinds of lewdness doesn't mean that they are meant to be a free for all for ALL vices. Note - illegal drug, still illegal. Half the states it is still illegal to take your pants off if there is alcohol in the room. Sex? Still illegal. (In strip clubs. Not just in general). There are all sorts of limitations placed on vic-iness in strip clubs, most of which is just the same sort of limitation that is placed on it OUTSIDE the strip club. The strip club has a couple of exemptions in the promoting of such "vices" (and I'm still pouting over that); not a generalized license.


My view of the role of government is libertarian to the point that I don't want my government to be so inflexible and intrusive that it prohibits a personal vice to take place wherever all adults present have consented to it.
"Consent" in this instance is not really that simple. It's not like two people making an agreement.


For instance, if a group of smokers wanted to create a business such as a smoking parlor, bar or strip club where smoking was permitted and they decided to hire only smokers (similar to how Hooters can legally hire only female waitresses) so as not to expose nonsmokers, I think it's overly instrusive for the government to say, no, there's no legal way to do that.
Actually... can you discriminate on the grounds of smoking? That is not in our human rights code. I wonder if you could refuse to hire non-smokers. Although, I suspect that you are the kind of person who would also think it is overly intrusive for the government to refuse to let a group of addicts open a crackhouse and hire only junkies. You are, aren't you? You totally think drug laws are constrictive and outmoded. I can tell from here.

Smokeless
11-15-2006, 12:11 AM
One detail I left out of the Colorado story. Bella's lost a whole bunch of business because of new stripclub rules from the City of Longmont. The dancer must cover herself, including exposed breasts, when touching a customer. On the stage or in VIP. It's really a bit strange. I attribute the rule change to WalMart moving in 1 block away. Nonetheless, they got hit by this about the same time the new smoking rules by the City AND by the State hit them. I would attribute lost business mostly to the contact rules, although I'm sure not being able to smoke was a double whammy too great to stomach for many customers.

Smokeless
11-15-2006, 10:18 AM
Nonetheless, I've had some nice experiences with a couple dancers there. They can make you feel really good. But they are the exception. Bella's just had yet another remodel, but I've not been back since then. Short leash the past couple weeks.

rusdancer
11-23-2006, 11:24 AM
I didn't read the whole thread,but have to add that starting jan 1st,New Year's Day,there will be a smoking ban in DC.That's in about a month away,and we're not sure how to react to that.

Any thoughts on DC area?