View Full Version : bring on anti-smoking in clubs in july rant
Melonie
02-02-2007, 11:04 AM
^^^ yes, but the majority of California voters decided that illegal aliens should not receive state social welfare benefits ... but they receive them anyway courtesy of court rulings! Going back in time, the majority of registered voters did NOT favor desegregation ... but were desegregated anyhow thanks to court rulings and the intervention of federal forces. There are countless examples where the 'will of the majority' is/was not in the best interest of a minority. America is based on the principle of a republic and individual rights, not a democracy and majority rule - or used to be at any rate.
Again, my point revolved around no-smoking laws eliminating the freedom of choice of dancers who don't mind being around smoke to earn top money ... a principle that also applies to waiters, bartenders etc. Right or wrong, good social policy or bad social policy, the fact remains that no-smoking laws reduce the amount of money coming in the front door of strip clubs / restaurants / bars, which in turn translates into less money in the pockets of dancers / waiters / bartenders. Maybe in 10 years there won't be a significant percentage of Americans remaining who still smoke and still avoid strip clubs / restaurants / bars - but that won't help dancers / waiters / bartenders pay next month's rent.
Jenny
02-02-2007, 02:38 PM
^^^ yes, but the majority of California voters decided that illegal aliens should not receive state social welfare benefits ... but they receive them anyway courtesy of court rulings! Going back in time, the majority of registered voters did NOT favor desegregation ... but were desegregated anyhow thanks to court rulings and the intervention of federal forces. There are countless examples where the 'will of the majority' is/was not in the best interest of a minority. America is based on the principle of a republic and individual rights, not a democracy and majority rule - or used to be at any rate.I find it ironic that you are all for the tyranny of the majority when it comes to basic human rights - the things that minorities are MEANT to be protected from, but all squeamish when it comes to - let's be honest here - a substance regulation. Like I said before - substance regulation and business zoning are not the kinds of things that the "tyranny of the majority" apply to. It applies to human rights - not every individual or small group who doesn't like an ordinance.
On another note - hasn't it generally been acknowledged that the dip in business is very temporary - still a problem I acknowledge, for the many people who are one paycheck away from being homeless, but that is a bigger issue too - here there was barely a ripple.
Finally - in reference to the last post, you can't (at least here), as silly as this may sound, generally challenge a law because it doesn't make sense. The sense the law makes comes a little later. I mean, we HOPE that the government isn't making random, useless laws but there is not much really stopping outside of very specific issues. There has to be some kind of ground besides "we don't like it and we think you're stupid". Note the licensing that was just deemed illegal in Ontario. An argument (which I've personally made many times) of "This makes NO sense! WHY am I being tracked over this?" cuts no ice - they're allowed to pass laws that don't make sense - the fact that there are many municipalities getting along just fine without dancer licenses is irrelevant etc. etc. doesn't matter at all. However, if inexact wording causes it to be in contravention of the Municipality Act - then it's out. Again - it doesn't mean that they can't pass insensible laws, and it certainly doesn't mean that they can't regulate strip clubs and, if they want, dancers.
Melonie
02-02-2007, 05:54 PM
On another note - hasn't it generally been acknowledged that the dip in business is very temporary - still a problem I acknowledge, for the many people who are one paycheck away from being homeless, but that is a bigger issue too - here there was barely a ripple.
Again going back to the statistics collected on bars / restaurants after no smoking laws were passed, it would appear that the effect is NOT temporary. Granted that I wouldn't swear that every posting on this particular website is 100% accurate, nor would I swear that every business closing was the sole result of no smoking laws, but for a fact negative s#!t has definitely happened on a permanent basis -
Perhaps the bar and restaurant owners are not being completely honest in their reporting ... BUT ... the outfits which have absolutely no reason to lie are the alcohol distributors, and they are all reporting significant reductions in wholesale alcohol sales to bars / restaurants / clubs.
~
I havn't been to a strip club since the ban on smoking here in NJ. I know a few other ppl how have done the same. You girls must be loosing some business.