Dealing with smoke in clubs

Toughen up a little princess.

It's like tats & piercings. If you don't like em, go some where else.

It may sound a bit harsh, but rick and 'cat have the right of it. You basically have three choices: deal with it, try to convince the owner to go smoke free, or go home.

I used to put my clothes in the washer and take a shower as soon as I got home, regardless of the hour.

If I have to choose between going smoke-free and fondling naked women, it's an easy choice.

I have a better idea for the smokers: If you like stinking up places, stay home and stink up your house.

The state of Michigan has now banned smoking in bars and restaurants, and so you can't smoke in strip clubs. The smokers have to choose between watching naked women and fouling their lungs and the lungs of decent strip club patrons.

The Michigan ban on smoking has also had the beneficial effect of motivating dancers to give up smoking. They used to all smoke, but now over half of my dancer friends have quit and the rest are trying to. I'm helping them to quit by giving them something better tasting to put in their mouths.

I don't smoke other than the occasional cigar, but my theory used to be, "it's a bar...if you don't like it, don't go". My home state has also banned smoking in bars and restaurants so it is different now. The biggest difference I've noticed is that more couples are bring their kids with them and eating in the bar area of restaurants. I still don't think kids are allowed to actually sit at the bar though.

If you're a smoker, thank God for South Carolina I guess. Right Shadowcat?

Magicrat: next time you go in the club, notice the sign out front. "smoking is prohibited in any public place" thank god the club says "fuck it. We'll pay the fine". Now in Georgia, if an establishment derives more income off liquor sales rather than food, smoking is permitted. So smoking is legally permitted in all strip clubs.

Strip clubs can follow the law and ban smoking. They can ban alcohol, they can ban nudity, they can ban physical contact. Pretty soon there won't be any reason to go at all. LOL.

I hate second hand smoke and can't stand being around it. However, I haven't noticed this in my visits to strip clubs, so they all must have been smoke free. In the future, when I eventually enter a club that isn't smoke free, I'll just deal with it. I really dislike being around it too, but it doesn't bother me so much that it's going to make me abandon beautiful, naked women. :)

@ magicrat - I misread your post and thought you said you'ld noticed more couples bringing their kids with them to the strip club!

So, do the little ones have to pay the full cover, or get in for half price?

I think to allow everybody to have their cake, management ought to install some smoke eaters to at least try and decrease the blue cloud. And I don't think you can now minimize the stark disparity between smokeless bars and smokey SCs. It is now impossible to pass off the smoke that clings to your clothes and body as just a visit to a bar. I even tried the excuse that I was at a sports bar and I *walked by* the designated smoking area and that's how I reeked of smoke. Wife glared at me.

"toughen up a little, Princess"

Brilliant.
I gotta use that one on my wife tonight.

+1 to Larry. The best I can do is bring a change of clothes, but you know your hair/skin smells. The wife hasn't said anything yet since the smoking ban..so far so good I guess.

@stevie..I'll bet if i could bring my grandbaby to the club, I could have fun with any gal in there! Hell I've won some points with dancers when I show them pictures on my cell phone. Usually they end up bringing out their phone and going thru their kids' pictures. Sometimes you get a nice surprise when they have a pic on their phone they forgot about.

Jackslash--
My memory is hazy and I have not looked this up, but I believe that the smoking ban in Michigan does not apply to casinos. The gaming industry fought for an exception because their demographics show that smoking and slots go together. Ban smoking in casinos and that cuts slots to almost nothing. Stripclubs do not have the same financial clout or political influence in Lansing enjoyed by the Michigan casinos. The last time I played slots, I almost couldn't breathe. I haven't been back, but the smoke in stripclubs never bothered me. It comes with the turf or bush, as the case may be.

Come to Ontario!

Dirt--
Windsor is still at the top of the list for Detroiters.

South Carolina indeed. You can't get away from it there, even outdoors. People empty their ashtrays at traffic lights, so there are big piles of butts on the ground at every intersection. The whole state looks and smells like an ashtray!

God Bless Michigan. That's why I pack my bags and head north almost every other weekend for the Great Lake State. Wish old Indiana would follow suit.

Hey Colombo stop by the gas station following your trip to the SC. Put a little gasoline in your tank, pull the nozzle, put a little in your hand, put the nozzle back in the tank. rub the gas on your clothes in a few places. the cig smell goes away until you can get them in the wash. You have already got the "big C" from 2nd hand smoke, what is a little gas gonna hurt!

People complain about second hand smoke, then go pants to the ankles on a VIP couch that a dozen people jizz on each day. Really worried about health risks huh?

And in Michigan, you can smoke in every strip club that I know of. Some you have to go to a separate bar, but at places like Bogarts and Tycoons you can smoke right at the tables.

Hey jackslash, how about if you don't like what somebody else allows on his property, you stay the fuck home, and quit screwing with the rest of us.

Although I'm a smoker, I can't always chime in as favoring smokers' rights. This statement below, for example, betrays a logical leap that is not merited:

"my theory used to be, "it's a bar...if you don't like it, don't go"."

(Note: the original poster of this statement wasn't necessarily defending it 100%, so I'm not taking him, personally, to task. I simply want to point out a fallacy as it goes by.)

I disagree with that logical connection, because it assumes that a bar inherently includes smokiness, and therefore any attendance at a bar includes attendance at a smoky bar. But this notion of a bar being smoky isn't a necessary one. How about any of the following, which make similar mistake:

-- It's a bar. Naturally the air inside it is purified, because it's a public place. If you want to smoke, don't go.

-- It's a bookstore. Naturally there is constant loud music blaring, and a panoply of products and foodstuffs on display and for sale, because they're trying to make a profit and they sell CDs and coffee, among other things. If you want to look over the books in quiet and have the opportunity to concentrate on your decision of which book to buy, don't go.

-- It's an airport. Naturally certain over-uniformed under-educated morons employed by various government agencies will prod your private parts. If you don't want to be fondled by a stranger, don't go.

All the above, as with the original bar-smoke example, assume (incorrectly) that it's IN THE NATURE OF THE PLACE to include certain characteristics. But the whole point of the discussion is, that some people would like to change THE CHARACTERISTIC NATURE OF THE PLACE. You don't get to argue that a bar SHOULD be smoky merely because bars ALWAYS HAVE BEEN smoky. Firstly, it's not necessarily true or false that bars always have been smoky. Secondly, whether or not true, it's still not necessarily good.

Generally, as I understand it, when governmental smoking bans have been implemented, business in bars and taverns hasn't dropped significantly across the whole population. Bars in trendy neighborhoods have lost certain demographics of customers, but gained other demographics. Bars in old-school, lower-class neighborhoods, have retained an identical customer base because of loyalty and entrenchment, and the old customers have just learned to change habits or have shuttled off to the street-corner or into the smokers cubicle, a new ritual with its own benefits. Those bars which have utterly suffered due to government intrusion, to the point of inability to continue to compete, are limited in number and, in the long run, can have no response to the following argument: Well, good. That's the point of the legislation. If they depend above all else on the peddling of their carcinogen-friendliness, then, we the government want to force them out of business. Not that I necessarily agree with that argument, but you have to admit at least that it's a consistent one, as far as the government's argument goes.

Here's the problem I have with it. Let's say that we really DO disapprove of tobacco-smoking so much, "as a society," that it's worth it to legislate it out of existence. I can almost accept that proposition. There are detrimental effects to the economy, productivity, individual well-being, etc.. The public-health costs are staggering, and I can agree that they should not be borne largely by people who are not indulging. (The same could be said about fatty foods, or about intoxicated driving, BTW.) I can see all that preceding argument making some sense. In which case, yeah, tobacco is pretty evil.

But here's the thing. So, all that's the case? It's an awful thing, tobacco, right? Therefore, we as a society also need to stop depending on it for revenue.

We tax the shit out of it, laugh all the way to the bank with our ridiculous profits off the backs of the tobacco companies, then say they're doing something evil and cruel. We let them play the game exactly the way the game was set up to be played, and we even give them the sanction of saying, "Hey, you're pretty scummy, but as long as you pay a mighty high premium, we'll let you continue to be scummy." Then, after they've trod smack dab onto the center of that rug, we yank it out from under them. "Oh, yeah, you know that fee we charged you that basically implied that you were free to do as you were doing, precisely because we were taxing you in the act of doing it? Yeah, well, we're going to keep the taxes, but we're also going to consider that act to be illegal."

That's hypocrisy. It annoys the hell out of me. The same sort of double-message often goes along with nearly all the nanny-state phenomena. We want motorcyclists to wear helmets and baby strollers to have warning labels ("remove baby before folding up stroller"). We claim this is "for the good" of the constituents. The babies aren't crushed, the mommies aren't left to crush their babies by dint of their own stupidity, and the motorcyclists can't possibly harm themselves as badly as if the helmets had been optional. Supposed benefits to public-health costs, and (more important?) to the PERSONAL WELLBEING of the individuals involved.

And then we excuse it by saying it's all about freedom and democracy. "We want them to be free to make informed, intelligent choices, and to productively participate in open society." Bullshit. We as a society WANT THE UNDERLING DUMB-FUCKS TO TOE THE LINE, and that's all we're REALLY concerned with.

"Do as I say, not as I do." That's what this smoke-no-smoke system -- tobacco-tax free-for-alls alongside public smoking bans -- is all about. "I am Big Brother. I like to contradict myself. It makes me feel like I'm in greater charge, than if I were consistent and reasonable."

So, I'm a smoker. I smoke a tobacco pipe -- heavily, recently. I like it. I only ever do it in smoky bars, such as at strip clubs. And if someone complains, I often will put it out for him. The two or three clubs that I go to (in New Orleans) range in smokiness from abysmal (Visions) to totally antiseptically purified (Penthouse). I've received an equivalent number of complaints from each of these clubs, about my smoking; and an equivalent number of compliments from the dancers at each of these clubs. It's not about whether or not the air is too smoky, not smoky enough, expected to be smoky, expected to be clean. It's about whether or not the manager on duty that night has an inferiority complex and needs to push somebody around; and similarly, it's about whether or not a dancer needs a conversation-starter topic. "That smells good. My grandfather used to ..." bullshit, he did not, you probably never met your skank-ass grandpa or if you did it's because he took you out back of the trailer to grease his willie when you were fourteen, but you got nice tits and an ass I could bounce a dime off of, so keep it up sweetheart. :)

Nothing to add.

I'm a smoker but understand that it bothers people. I just don't think that smoking bans should be forced across the board. If some owners want to allow smoking they should be allowed to...just as if some owners want to ban smoking they should be allowed to. It's never a good thing when the government comes in and dictates to people how they can do their business.

Once again, I don't want bible thumpers trying to get SC's banned because it's "bad" for patrons and the dancers, the neighborhood, etc. Let each free person choose where and how they want to do their business.

I don't smoke and if someone is close to me and it bothers me, I move.

we've been over this before, any pro or anti smoking decisions should be up to the business owner, period!

tttclub.....yeah, Bogarts seems to allow smoking, but then, they are little more tolerant of all "rule breaking" LOL!

The Lansing clubs strictly enforce the smoking ban though.

I would find it rather ironic if the Detroit area clubs were enforced the smoking rule, but not the "other" rules.

Ohio banned all smoking in all businesses during a statewide election about 4 years ago, so thank god I don't have to worry about that here, although the smoking lobby is constantly trying to get smoking back. Before this, I used to avoid a lot of clubs because of the thick smoke.

I'm not sure I'd leave the decision to ban or accept smoking entirely up to the business owners, but I would prefer a greater degree of latitude than the 100%-bans which have taken place in some jurisdictions. It seems silly that a rule which was probably designed for accountants' offices and 5-star restaurants should be applied to strippers' change rooms. Nevertheless, it's also the case that all the clients, patrons, and workers in all these locations are members of the species homo sapiens (except the bathroom goon). Consequently, all are equivalently threatened by the second-hand carcinogens. As a result, therefore, any one of them might accidentally incur a cost borne by the nation's taxpayers for medical services, and yet would have no recourse in his or her lifetime other than through government intrusion. Thus the government can claim to have an interest in regulating the matter. I see the reasoning.

Yet I smoke my tobacco pipe, heavily, in public, generating plenty of second-hand carcinogens for others. Eh ...

I was not in favor of the Ohio ban, even though I am a non smoker. However, I now have less tolerence for second hand smoke and have a avoided a club I like because they still allow smoking inside. It is pretty well ventilated, but I just find the whole smoking thing lame and annoying, so I don't go there much.

That's why I took up tobacco-pipe smoking. :)

For the most part, I deal with it. I've been admittedly spoiled by non-smoking rules in CA,and OH, plus some clubs in FL that chose to go non-smoking. Several of the smoking clubs I go to have a decent ventilation system. Cigar and pipe smoking don't bother me that much. Moving to another place in club is an option, but even that has limits. I'm not bashful about asking someone to move ashtray away from me. (IMO, someone who puts ashtray by a non-smoking patron, vs an empty spot on away side should not be allowed to breed). For staff smokers, I'm cutting less slack, as they should adapt to me. Really, a dancer should have some awareness of a customers smoking preference- a dancer who asks if I mind if she smokes probably won't be adaptive to me in the back. Thus, I feel no loss for saying that I do mind, and sending her on her way.

i don't like smoke. so i take a deep breath and hold it and dive in. works until a girl comes up.


seriously... i have been around smokers all my life. to say it doesn't bother me would be a lie. i just ignore it. (no wonder i cough a lot.)

There should be designated smoking areas that way those that wanna smoke can do that w/o the non-smokers being forced to "smoke with them" - I know smokers that when at home will step out to smoke but when in another indoor place that allows smoking they'll light-up to their heart's content - if it's unhealthy to smoke in stores or offices, why is it not unhealthy in strip clubs or bars?

Smoke happens, if my clothes stink, I put them in a laundry bag for the next wash. As long as smokers don't exhale in my face, I don't mind it that much. Tending bar for many years got me accustomed to it.

George Carlin — 'Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?'

We've gotten around that in Ohio by having outdoor patios at bars and strip clubs. It l's a good compromise

With that said, although I am a non smoker and detest 2nd hand cigarette smoke (prefer marijuana, pipes, or tabacco cigars, really) I don't like how the law was enacted, even though I benefit from this 2007 law. Anytime we get "mob rule" from the Ohio farmers and leftist-progressive thugs I take pause. Because they can use mob votes to outlaw anything (strip clubs, marijuana, alcohol on Sundays, soda pop, any vice really), whether I agree with it or not. So I'm not a fan of the tactics.

It has been a serious problem. People who work in bars, and strippers, have much higher smoking rates than the general population.

But fortunately here in California we have been getting better and better clean air protection laws. These do now cover bars, and everywhere else. So there is no such thing as legal smoking in a strip club, and this is enforced. It won't be just a fine, any place that regularly violates will be closed. So they do comply.

So the air is clean. And the general smoking rate is going down, 9%, second lowest after Utah and followed by Idaho.

And the bar worker and strip club dancer rates, though still higher than the general population, they are also going way down. Attitudes do change when you protect public air space. And so since we have had these laws for around 20 years now, attitudes are changing even in the most recalcitrant realms.

But as to how bad it can be:
http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,…

SJG

I'm glad to read that, SJG.

I hate that the government gets involved with this. I don't smoke and HATE the stench, but...

Smoking is legal so let people smoke.

Let the free market system drive the decisions. If enough of us hate it enough for it to negatively impact club profits, management would enforce their own rules. Apparently that is not the case.

Smoking is not legal in places where the law prohibits it.

The free market system is something created by the government. If we do things that way, then the most aggressive people will always control everything.

If the government is really out of it, I can stop smokers from taking control of the airspace. Without the government protecting them, I would be extremely effective.

SJG

Words can't describe how amazing it is to always be in non-smoking bars, strip clubs, restaurants, etc., versus how things were 20 years ago. I'm so accustomed to it that I"m still a little taken aback -- and typically cut my trips short -- when I have to spend time in other states and run into indoor businesses that allow smoking

I enjoy a good cigar with a quality scotch, but i don't enjoy the clubs that are too cheap to run a smokeeater.

I'm an ex smoker. So cigarette smoke does not bother me.I'm not a pot smoker either but it too doesn't bother me. But those fucking cigars beside stinking up the place, they are cock blockers. I've had strippers pass me by because some guy at the next table was smoking one.