^^^ yes, but in terms of the legal right to enact anti-smoking regulations versus the legal right to enact anti-strip club laws, they both rely on the same principle ... that a majority of people don't want smoking / strip clubs in their face, and justify the ban on the basis of an unproven but generally agreed on assumption that smoking / strip clubs are 'harmful' to others. Thus while it might be possible for a dancer to 'sensibly distinguish the existance of strip clubs vs the existance of second hand smoke', a housewife or retiree or preacher & flock might not have the same 'sense' where strip clubs are concerned !!!Most of us would probably try to sensibly distinguish the existence of strip clubs to the existence of second hand smoke rather than just do away with all policy decisions.
The point is that if you legally permit and support the concept that the voting majority of dancers + citizens + whoever is entitled to enact anti-smoking laws for 'good social policy' reasons, or are entitled to enact anti-fatty food laws for 'good social policy' reasons, you're also laying the groundwork for legally permitting the citizens + whomever to enact anti-strip club laws for exactly the same 'good social policy' reasons but with the dancers now being in the minority ! Letting the majority decide what's 'good' for everybody in the absence of 100% proof that something is 'bad' can become a very dangerous precedent !
Whatever feelings on the 'good social policy' issue, for a fact the enforcement of no smoking rules in strip clubs decreases ultimate dancer earnings. Depending on where one is located, somewhere between 20 and 30% of the population are smokers. Enforcement of no smoking rules pretty much guarantees that smokers are not going to stay in a particular place for more than an hour ... and when they leave they take their money with them. Enforcement of no smoking rules also leads to decisions by groups that include smokers + non-smokers (like bachelor parties) to avoid non-smoking venues altogether or to have the entire group leave after an hour. Of those smoking customers who now only plan to stay in the club for an hour, there is now a strong incentive to dispense with the 'time wasting niceties' and get right down to business re negotiating for extras so that they can 'get in, get off, and get out' before the one hour nicotine clock goes off. This dispensing with the 'time wasting niceties' readily rubs off on many non-smoking customers as well, because even though they may not be interested in getting out of the club within an hour they ARE interested in getting maximum 'bang' for their buck taking advantage of the smoking customers' precedent re VIP room negotiations. Similarly, smoking guys also now have a strong incentive to simply bypass the club altogether and call an escort agency to take care of their 'needs' in their home or hotel room where smoking is still permitted.
Say and think what you want, but every time I have seen a city/state pass a no-smoking law, and a year later I hear tales of woe about reduced dancer earnings, as well as the 'automatic' assumption on the part of the woeful dancers that the two developments are somehow totally unrelated ...
~



Reply With Quote



Bookmarks