I am wondering if an unpleasant side effect of the (6-month old) Ohio "No Touching" law is that gentleman's clubs are getting tougher in the old BuckEye state. My guess is that the dancer base is losing the " I'll do this for a while until I go to school" dancer and is keeping the hard core career dancers (and their suppliers)... Take a look at this week's story from Cinderella's (Eden's Apple) in Ashtabula (and take a good look at Chaos, the accused dancer :
Just a guess but I'd expect such laws to result in more, not less, illicit activities in and around clubs (eg. take-out), since the laws presumably make it more difficult for girls to make a good living by following the rules. As is often the case with laws like this, they're likely to have the exact opposite effect of that which the laws' supporters intended.
FONDL, yes that seems to be what happened here... Someone else pointed out that in the six months since the Ohio law passed, Cleveland has lost 4 more clubs: Motion,Cleveland PM, the Hustler Club (redevelopment) and Monroes (fire). Some of the clubs on BrookPark seem to be just hanging on. (The BibleThumpers win ??)
That is an interesting question as to whether Bible Thumpers win. The same hand that feeds them tax incentives also limits and may even dictate their speech. A preacher is too vocal in condemning homosexuals may at some point be subject to hate speech laws, and regardless if he values the dollar he better damn well stay away from "political" speech or his relgious order may lose their government bennies. In a State that allows gay marriage would a mere preacher be permitted to refuse the request of a gay couple to marry them? Sort of like is the Boy Scouts permitted to say NO to homosexuals or even teach that it is wrong?
In a very real sense the Bible Thumpers are winning a battle, but may lose the war. Remember the State is in the supposed business of legislating morals then those religious folks better be praying their morals are in harmony with that of the government--not that I think that generally they have any real solid beliefs that can't be bought with a tax break here or a grant there. Or, more likely NO bribery is needed and the religious folks will pretty much believe do whatever they're told by authority. Looking at the religious values in other cultures I think it can be seen that most people want to obey. Obey the government or their religious order. They want and need to be told what to do and what to think. It really doesn't make too much difference to the followers what the authority, religious or government, dictates, imo. In that sense the Bible Thumpers like the Flag Wavers, generally can't lose. :)
No, it is "cleverly" called "hate crime laws" here in the land of the "free" and the "brave." Is it a distinction worth a dime? Well, it a allows for every greater selectivity of enforcement and also gives a patina to those who would like to believe freedom of speech is still the law of the land.
For example, The Wall Street Journal did an article on the federal government suing residents who were petitioning against government public housing. The government's lawsuit sought huge money damages. How dare these residents circulate a petition against public housing. That's discrimination! Not allowed in "free" America. Here in Floria a real estate salesperson damn well better watch his words or he will face penalties in the land of the "free." These government speech laws are old news. More recent according to The Wall Street Journal is the use of SLAP lawsuits by corporations to silence people. Oh yeah, the government's wonderful courts will protect you. :) I was at a hearing where the attorneys weren't just seeking the reasonable $400 per hour in attorneys' fees, but double that -- $800 per hour. The judge asked the expert witness--a fellow lawyer--why isn't the standard $400 good enough? The lawyer err expert witness says because only these lawyers's advanced skill brought victiory. Judge says sounds good to me, $800 per hour it is. And, the billable hours? They just make up any number. It is a giant open fraud. :)
Yep, it isn't Canada. A lot more real freedom up there. :) Actually, I know very little about Canada and perhaps it is just as crooked and dishonest as the government here in the land of "free" and home of the "brave."
Surprise, surprise. Just reading the morning news and an example of "indirect" federal government restriction of speech pops up. You know the old saw about the "golden rule"? He who has the gold makes the rules. :) In modern times, it is he who prints the funny money and the funny laws.
The new law by itself means little. Enforcement is the real key to it having any affect. In Central Ohio, there seems to have been little enforcement, from what little I can pick up from fellow patrons and my ATF. Please see my review of Kahoots from Feb. My guess is, however, that enforcement varies by community.
Re: How did the "Tuff Girl" break her nose ? I don't know, but I hope that it was a car accident, and not from having a (losing) career in the fight game.... (Not really the sweet girl that you take home to Mum, is she ?)
I am unfortunately in the middle of things right now and I can honestly say that things have gone downhill a bit.
First off, the no dances after midnight rule just kills late night business which makes the girls all unhappy. I'm not a fan of the late night trip to a club but I can see where the girls are missing out on some significant money.
The quality of the girls has gone downhill a little but I haven't noticed any dancers yet who have left the state. This may happen on the edge of the state but here in Cleveland, I still see the same old faces (old of course referring to familiar).
I have heard a number of clubs in Cleveland have closed, but the ones that did were all pretty scary to begin with. When one of the clubs on Brookpark (besides Gold Horse which should have closed years ago) closes, then I will believe the law is having an affect.
Mileage is what has been affected. If the girl doesn't know you, then you aren't going to get very good mileage in case you are LE. You are almost better off apologizing for copping an illegal feel on a new dancer (proving that you aren't LE) to set her at ease.
Hate crimes and hate speech are not necessarily the same thing. Like I said, move to Canada where you can actually be prosecuted merely for what you *say* (speech) by a special public tribunal there and not just for what you do (a criminal or civil act). The abortion nonesense was that private agency's overreaction to receiving federal funds for that informational website...they then believed (wrongly) that they couldn't have the website's search engine be able to look up things about abortion (since the Bushies reinstituted the "gag order" a while back on agencies, mostly foreign, that received federal funds from ever mentioning abortion at all). It's all nonsense.
I don't need to move to Canada where "you can actually be prosecuted merely for what you *say*." I live in the supposed land of the free and home of the brave. You know how wonderful this government is about obeying its own laws don't you??? So instead of the government persecuting me for what I say I could expect a phony drug charge or bank robbery charge or there are so many laws from which to create a crime. Wonderful. Just wonderful. Hate crimes and hate speech get cozy enough to not make a dimes worth of difference, imo. Sort of like the difference between serving 500 years in prison compared to serving 550 years in prison. A judge or lawyer might see a meaningful difference, but the average joe should see right thru the bs.
A buddy who is a pro-America nut job and I hate to say it, but highly intelligent got hit hard with drug charges (no, this isn't the pro-America nut job who loves Angels and is all depressed strippers don't tuly love him). In addition to being a pro-America nut job, he is also an anti-drug nut job. :) So for years he yapped about how wonderful America is because he was able beat the phony (his word) drug charges (the loveable government additionally tried to steal all his property). Didn't impress me even a tad that he escaped the government thugs. If he was truly innocent as he claimed (I've always known him to be anti-drug and pro-America for whatever that's worth), then he went through a living hell all because he has a huge mouth. I pretty much keep a low profile, but hopefully dear readers will just consider me a nut and ignore whatever I have to say. :) I say if you think there is freedom of speech in America (besides flag waving) then you are either uninformed or you have a very different concept of freedom of speech than I do. :)
You probably also believe you have a right to a jury trial. My high priced attorneys spouted the same nonsense. The law was clear-- the problem is expecting the government judges to obey the law. So clear as day the law claimed I had all these rights and the high priced attorneys were very confident the judge would obey the law. Yeah, right. The whole shabang is a giant fraud. I don't know how you would feel if you were wrongly screwed by the government . . . you might may make excuses. Such as it was just a few crooked judge. Or, you might see the rights are very soft and pliable giving you pretty much no protection. Or, you might end up an activist and make a difference.
Getting a little bit more off topic, I'm thinking about the Second Amendment. I've long considered the U.S. Constitution to be a joke with little value. It makes little difference to me whether there is a right to be armed with a gun or not. I don't even give a crap if individuals have or don't have a right to defend themselves. That is the point I'm at.
But, looking at the Second Amendment I find it very interesting the U.S. Supreme Court actually was willing to hear a case based on the Second Amendment. According to papers I've been reading the last Second Amendment case heard before the court was some 70 years ago. I guess Americans don't care much about the Second Amendment. :) See the way I interpret the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear Second Amendment cases is just proof in the pudding that the Constitution is a joke that means whatever some judge wishes at any given moment. You have a right to bear arms? I don't know and it isn't a question of how clear the law is written. It is the judges that make the law and even that is a fraud. Like one of my attorneys said to me upon retiring, you really expect the courts to follow even their own precedence? :) No, I didn't. I was hoping for a written ruling with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Couldn't even get that. :) The supposed freedoms people think they have are sort of like the Second Amendment. Maybe a judge will rule in your favor today or maybe not. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court makes a clear decision getting the lower courts to comply is sort of laughable. :) Just recently the (within the last 2 years) the U.S. Supreme made a big show about reversing 20 so cases from a rebellious federal appeals court. Big freaking deal. The federal appeals court hasn't slowed even a tad would be my educated and experienced guess.
I agree that the Bush Regime is full of law breakers galore. Politics certainly do have a lot to do with federal cases unfortunately though. Did I touch a nerve otherwise... ;) Don't get me started on the baloney Second Amendment & how it's been misinterpreted by way too many people.
Yes, you touched a nerve. :) It is like when this well intentioned consumer activist was informing me of my rights under the law. Sounded very good and the person even had a legal cite. I was all set to hire an attorney and seek compensation from an auto repair shop that had not only destroyed my truck, but much more importantly under the law had sought to charge me over a $1,000 when the verbal estimate was for a few hundred.
Anyway, I got a copy of the case from the law library and it sounded too good to be true and I was very upbeat that an attorney should have no problem with my case if I decided to sue. Not only was the consumer rights statute very well written, but the appellate decision was excellent as well. Well, I'm fairly distrustful when it comes to the law so I pulled the actual case file from the trial court. It was an unbelieveable mess. The original complaint was well written and so simple even a simpleton could easily understand it. Even better the consumer who won had a case almost identical to mine, but there was a fly in the ointment. The case had many VOLUMES. I read through all the idiotic garbage, which really had nothing to with anything except generating lawyer fees. The consumer lost and worse had to pay the auto shop something like $16,000 plus just in "reasonable" attorney fees. Fortunately, this consumer had money to burn. He appealed. God knows what the appellate attorney fees were. And, remember this consumer's attorney wasn't working for free. That means the consumer was being screwed for not only the auto shop's attorney fees and costs, but his own as well! If he lost, then the $16,000 plus would look like a small change. And, this consumer from what I could tell is the one who was royally screwed by the auto shop to begin with! The good news is the consumer won at the appellate level. The case didn't show how much the auto shop ended up paying in "reasonable" attorneys' fees, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't substantial especially consider how straight forward the case was and how relatively little money was initially involved.
So did I have any real rights under the consumer protection statute? Hell, NO!!! Those reasonable attorneys were a hell of a trap. Despite the appellate court decision it would have been very easy for me to be screwed over royally with years of litigation about absolutely nothing. The courts are a GIANT fraud. So, I never pursued the case because it made a lot more financial sense to lose the money I paid as well as my truck. :( The hoodlum repair shop was free to rip off and destroy other consumers' cars.
I even had a police officer volunteer to help. Very nice guy, but he claimed that the consumer services entity I was seeking help from was only authorized to make sure auto shops were fully insured. He was stunned when I showed him the law that spelled out what their real duties were. He had always believed they cared nothing except whether the auto shop carried full insurance. I told the officer that is true, but it isn't what the law mandates. All of their resources go to pushing insurance on auto shops. I even got my commissioner involved. He agreed with me, but said there wasn't anything he could do . . . he was later arrested on some type of corruption charges I believe.
So yes you touched a raw nerve. :) I don't care how clear the law is or how simple the case is, to me it is just a giant fraud and that includes the U.S. Constitution. Those vets who mouth off about me owing them anything are sadly mistaken. They fought for the government, which means jack to me. If they were actually fighting for my rights, then I'd definitely see them in a more positive light instead of as dupes or flag wavers. Yes, I'm bitter and have a bad attitude. :(
I'm curious, how does the law define what is and is not a strip club? What's to keep a club from redefining itself as something else, like maybe a gentlemen's spa, and offering similar services such as scantily clad hostesses, and instead of lap dances in back rooms offer massages? (I mentioned this possibility elsewhere not long ago.) I think if such laws become widespread that's exactly what will happen, especially in states that don't license massage therapists, which is about half of them.
Well as someone else pointed out enforcement is a huge part of the game. Next to enforcement you get interpretation. Is the actual wording of a law what is truly important or is it the meaning a judge gives those words? Hint: The judge wins almost every time. :)
Here in South Florida there was a case where officers went to an adult club where people were interested in wife swapping and "public" sex i.e. sex inside the club. Anyway, the judge ruled one officer's testimony couldn't be used because she wasn't offended by anything she saw. The second officer then claimed to be deeply offended by what he saw. Bottom line the people who were brave enough to risk years behind bars got off. I would been like the majority who were arrested and just accepted any reasonable plea deal the government offered. A judge with a different opinion and those people who risked incarceration would be seeing life from behind bars for years most likely.
That's an idea, if the bible thumpers want to ban all strip clubs, the rest of the nation resorts to finding the bible thumpers wives online since we won't have strip clubs to entertain us anymore. I see a number of ads for married wives and others online without even trying to look. It's just that I didn't necessarily want to get in a sexual relationship with every single female I meet but if it comes to that because we can't go out and party anymore in a public setting and have to do everything in private, then I guess the bible thumpers will get what they ask for.
By the way, I've met at least 2 dancers from Ohio in the last 2 months. They both were nice and looked pretty good too.
In the end, the bible thumpers drive against strip clubs will only increase the amount of sex, drugs, and prostitution going on. I believe that is more likely to happen when you get in a one on one situation with a desperate person and you don't have a public setting to deter illegal activity anymore.
It's probably just a matter of time before a number of restrictions start applying to churches as well since our bigger government is not defending the constitution anymore in my opinion. If nobody else is safe from oppressive laws, churches won't be either.
Last post here, I would like to say I think it's a huge waste of taxpayer money for a city or state to pay police to enforce all these restrictions on strip clubs some feel they need to enact into law. It's not like the people in strip clubs are only 14 years. They are grown consenting adults.
Here's my rambling take on what's going on in Greater Cleveland. All clubs here have been struggling relative to the good old days anyway, but given the no-smoking law and now the strip club law, the struggle has taken on a new dimension. One noticle affect is the day business. It used to be a a reasonalbe time to make money with the more adult/higher discretionaly income audience that rivaled the night volume. But days shifts are nowa slower--buyt that sometimes means more time with your dayshit ATF.
Yes, the above mentiooned clubs in previous posts have closed, some for the better becaue they needed a shaking up. Yes, the Brookpark Rd. clubs are still open, but they are barely hanging on some days. If you know the girl, mileage is the same or better depending on the level of business. If things have been really slow, they're really happy to see you, etc. But we're always watching the door to see who is coming in next. If it's a stranger, things get a little tame for a while.
If you come in from out of town to see your regulars, my advice is still come, because your ATFs will be glad to see you. If you're a newbie, you'll have to find your way around carefully, learn to like eye candy and air or maybe buy a magazaine, depending on where you go.
Another outcome is that some (not all)owners have incresed the drink hussle 1) by increasing the price and giving a kickback to the girls, 2) or by enforcing high drink quotas (usualy already in place but not enforced much) and then making life miserable for the girls if they don't meet it: -pay a fine, -makeup the difference or -maybe get fired if they can't sell their share. Three of my favorites at a popular club were let go for this reason two weeks ago.
Another positive outcome is that there has been this great diaspora (read your history!)of dancers from the closed clubs which is upping the quality considerably. Owners in second tier clubs don't have any excuses now for hiring chunky dancers.
A few girls I know have quit from the closed clubs, but most have found new homes. The remaining dancers in most clubs are the can't/won't-do-anything-else types. I see very few going-to-college dancers anymore.
Lastly, the recent changes have affected the quality of your experience downtown. There used to be three high end clubs downtown and one pretender. But with the closing of the Hustler Club, you're left with a "touch and you're out" club and a large glitze and glitter club that most often doesn't deliver on fun (too big, too aloof, bad attitude) and the other wanabe high-end that really isn't and is struggling. Cleveland hasn't been enforcing anything regarding the new law ( with the exzception of midnighyt dance ending), however, some downtown clubs are self-policing and have become a little tamer. However, the challenge can sometimes make for better fun.
In the long run the politicians will regret this because of the loss of tax dollars from bar/club revenue and an eventual increase in working girls from the desperate ones--I can see it beginning, but it's not a ground swell.
Interesting to read the other Ohio comments. My experience is that in many other places on Ohio, especially in Columbus, customer expectations (on a mass market scale) are different from those in Cleveland, so the change is not being felt as sharply there.
The responses of my most-frequented Dayton area clubs have varied, from no noticeable change, to going 'members-only', to bizarre cover/uncover alternating dances. As has happened in the past, I expect practices to drift as clubs find what is likely to pass local LE, and as that in itself changes.
Casualguy, I agree that it's a huge waste of taxpayer money for LE to harass strip clubs etc. and IME most LE people agree. But they have to respond to complaints from citizens, and that's what usually leads to the harassment. And I know you have a hard on for bible thumpers but they're not the only culprits who complain - in my area it's primarily other businesses in the area. And local businessmen, who are usually well connected politically, tend to carry a lot more wieght than the occasional bible thumper who typically isn't.
23 comments
Latest
In a very real sense the Bible Thumpers are winning a battle, but may lose the war. Remember the State is in the supposed business of legislating morals then those religious folks better be praying their morals are in harmony with that of the government--not that I think that generally they have any real solid beliefs that can't be bought with a tax break here or a grant there. Or, more likely NO bribery is needed and the religious folks will pretty much believe do whatever they're told by authority. Looking at the religious values in other cultures I think it can be seen that most people want to obey. Obey the government or their religious order. They want and need to be told what to do and what to think. It really doesn't make too much difference to the followers what the authority, religious or government, dictates, imo. In that sense the Bible Thumpers like the Flag Wavers, generally can't lose. :)
That lady in the article looks tuff...who the heck broke her nose??
For example, The Wall Street Journal did an article on the federal government suing residents who were petitioning against government public housing. The government's lawsuit sought huge money damages. How dare these residents circulate a petition against public housing. That's discrimination! Not allowed in "free" America. Here in Floria a real estate salesperson damn well better watch his words or he will face penalties in the land of the "free." These government speech laws are old news. More recent according to The Wall Street Journal is the use of SLAP lawsuits by corporations to silence people. Oh yeah, the government's wonderful courts will protect you. :) I was at a hearing where the attorneys weren't just seeking the reasonable $400 per hour in attorneys' fees, but double that -- $800 per hour. The judge asked the expert witness--a fellow lawyer--why isn't the standard $400 good enough? The lawyer err expert witness says because only these lawyers's advanced skill brought victiory. Judge says sounds good to me, $800 per hour it is. And, the billable hours? They just make up any number. It is a giant open fraud. :)
Yep, it isn't Canada. A lot more real freedom up there. :) Actually, I know very little about Canada and perhaps it is just as crooked and dishonest as the government here in the land of "free" and home of the "brave."
Web site restores ‘abortion’ as search term
Johns Hopkins site had restricted its use after inquires by USAID
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23973513/wid…
BTW, although I think abortion is generally murder, it is a killing I'd rather see the government ignore. I guess that means I'm pro-choice. :(
First off, the no dances after midnight rule just kills late night business which makes the girls all unhappy. I'm not a fan of the late night trip to a club but I can see where the girls are missing out on some significant money.
The quality of the girls has gone downhill a little but I haven't noticed any dancers yet who have left the state. This may happen on the edge of the state but here in Cleveland, I still see the same old faces (old of course referring to familiar).
I have heard a number of clubs in Cleveland have closed, but the ones that did were all pretty scary to begin with. When one of the clubs on Brookpark (besides Gold Horse which should have closed years ago) closes, then I will believe the law is having an affect.
Mileage is what has been affected. If the girl doesn't know you, then you aren't going to get very good mileage in case you are LE. You are almost better off apologizing for copping an illegal feel on a new dancer (proving that you aren't LE) to set her at ease.
A buddy who is a pro-America nut job and I hate to say it, but highly intelligent got hit hard with drug charges (no, this isn't the pro-America nut job who loves Angels and is all depressed strippers don't tuly love him). In addition to being a pro-America nut job, he is also an anti-drug nut job. :) So for years he yapped about how wonderful America is because he was able beat the phony (his word) drug charges (the loveable government additionally tried to steal all his property). Didn't impress me even a tad that he escaped the government thugs. If he was truly innocent as he claimed (I've always known him to be anti-drug and pro-America for whatever that's worth), then he went through a living hell all because he has a huge mouth. I pretty much keep a low profile, but hopefully dear readers will just consider me a nut and ignore whatever I have to say. :) I say if you think there is freedom of speech in America (besides flag waving) then you are either uninformed or you have a very different concept of freedom of speech than I do. :)
You probably also believe you have a right to a jury trial. My high priced attorneys spouted the same nonsense. The law was clear-- the problem is expecting the government judges to obey the law. So clear as day the law claimed I had all these rights and the high priced attorneys were very confident the judge would obey the law. Yeah, right. The whole shabang is a giant fraud. I don't know how you would feel if you were wrongly screwed by the government . . . you might may make excuses. Such as it was just a few crooked judge. Or, you might see the rights are very soft and pliable giving you pretty much no protection. Or, you might end up an activist and make a difference.
But, looking at the Second Amendment I find it very interesting the U.S. Supreme Court actually was willing to hear a case based on the Second Amendment. According to papers I've been reading the last Second Amendment case heard before the court was some 70 years ago. I guess Americans don't care much about the Second Amendment. :) See the way I interpret the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear Second Amendment cases is just proof in the pudding that the Constitution is a joke that means whatever some judge wishes at any given moment. You have a right to bear arms? I don't know and it isn't a question of how clear the law is written. It is the judges that make the law and even that is a fraud. Like one of my attorneys said to me upon retiring, you really expect the courts to follow even their own precedence? :) No, I didn't. I was hoping for a written ruling with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Couldn't even get that. :) The supposed freedoms people think they have are sort of like the Second Amendment. Maybe a judge will rule in your favor today or maybe not. Even when the U.S. Supreme Court makes a clear decision getting the lower courts to comply is sort of laughable. :) Just recently the (within the last 2 years) the U.S. Supreme made a big show about reversing 20 so cases from a rebellious federal appeals court. Big freaking deal. The federal appeals court hasn't slowed even a tad would be my educated and experienced guess.
Anyway, I got a copy of the case from the law library and it sounded too good to be true and I was very upbeat that an attorney should have no problem with my case if I decided to sue. Not only was the consumer rights statute very well written, but the appellate decision was excellent as well. Well, I'm fairly distrustful when it comes to the law so I pulled the actual case file from the trial court. It was an unbelieveable mess. The original complaint was well written and so simple even a simpleton could easily understand it. Even better the consumer who won had a case almost identical to mine, but there was a fly in the ointment. The case had many VOLUMES. I read through all the idiotic garbage, which really had nothing to with anything except generating lawyer fees. The consumer lost and worse had to pay the auto shop something like $16,000 plus just in "reasonable" attorney fees. Fortunately, this consumer had money to burn. He appealed. God knows what the appellate attorney fees were. And, remember this consumer's attorney wasn't working for free. That means the consumer was being screwed for not only the auto shop's attorney fees and costs, but his own as well! If he lost, then the $16,000 plus would look like a small change. And, this consumer from what I could tell is the one who was royally screwed by the auto shop to begin with! The good news is the consumer won at the appellate level. The case didn't show how much the auto shop ended up paying in "reasonable" attorneys' fees, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't substantial especially consider how straight forward the case was and how relatively little money was initially involved.
So did I have any real rights under the consumer protection statute? Hell, NO!!! Those reasonable attorneys were a hell of a trap. Despite the appellate court decision it would have been very easy for me to be screwed over royally with years of litigation about absolutely nothing. The courts are a GIANT fraud. So, I never pursued the case because it made a lot more financial sense to lose the money I paid as well as my truck. :( The hoodlum repair shop was free to rip off and destroy other consumers' cars.
I even had a police officer volunteer to help. Very nice guy, but he claimed that the consumer services entity I was seeking help from was only authorized to make sure auto shops were fully insured. He was stunned when I showed him the law that spelled out what their real duties were. He had always believed they cared nothing except whether the auto shop carried full insurance. I told the officer that is true, but it isn't what the law mandates. All of their resources go to pushing insurance on auto shops. I even got my commissioner involved. He agreed with me, but said there wasn't anything he could do . . . he was later arrested on some type of corruption charges I believe.
So yes you touched a raw nerve. :) I don't care how clear the law is or how simple the case is, to me it is just a giant fraud and that includes the U.S. Constitution. Those vets who mouth off about me owing them anything are sadly mistaken. They fought for the government, which means jack to me. If they were actually fighting for my rights, then I'd definitely see them in a more positive light instead of as dupes or flag wavers. Yes, I'm bitter and have a bad attitude. :(
Well as someone else pointed out enforcement is a huge part of the game. Next to enforcement you get interpretation. Is the actual wording of a law what is truly important or is it the meaning a judge gives those words? Hint: The judge wins almost every time. :)
Here in South Florida there was a case where officers went to an adult club where people were interested in wife swapping and "public" sex i.e. sex inside the club. Anyway, the judge ruled one officer's testimony couldn't be used because she wasn't offended by anything she saw. The second officer then claimed to be deeply offended by what he saw. Bottom line the people who were brave enough to risk years behind bars got off. I would been like the majority who were arrested and just accepted any reasonable plea deal the government offered. A judge with a different opinion and those people who risked incarceration would be seeing life from behind bars for years most likely.
By the way, I've met at least 2 dancers from Ohio in the last 2 months. They both were nice and looked pretty good too.
It's probably just a matter of time before a number of restrictions start applying to churches as well since our bigger government is not defending the constitution anymore in my opinion. If nobody else is safe from oppressive laws, churches won't be either.
Yes, the above mentiooned clubs in previous posts have closed, some for the better becaue they needed a shaking up. Yes, the Brookpark Rd. clubs are still open, but they are barely hanging on some days. If you know the girl, mileage is the same or better depending on the level of business. If things have been really slow, they're really happy to see you, etc. But we're always watching the door to see who is coming in next. If it's a stranger, things get a little tame for a while.
If you come in from out of town to see your regulars, my advice is still come, because your ATFs will be glad to see you. If you're a newbie, you'll have to find your way around carefully, learn to like eye candy and air or maybe buy a magazaine, depending on where you go.
Another outcome is that some (not all)owners have incresed the drink hussle 1) by increasing the price and giving a kickback to the girls, 2) or by enforcing high drink quotas (usualy already in place but not enforced much) and then making life miserable for the girls if they don't meet it: -pay a fine, -makeup the difference or -maybe get fired if they can't sell their share. Three of my favorites at a popular club were let go for this reason two weeks ago.
Another positive outcome is that there has been this great diaspora (read your history!)of dancers from the closed clubs which is upping the quality considerably. Owners in second tier clubs don't have any excuses now for hiring chunky dancers.
A few girls I know have quit from the closed clubs, but most have found new homes. The remaining dancers in most clubs are the can't/won't-do-anything-else types. I see very few going-to-college dancers anymore.
Lastly, the recent changes have affected the quality of your experience downtown. There used to be three high end clubs downtown and one pretender. But with the closing of the Hustler Club, you're left with a "touch and you're out" club and a large glitze and glitter club that most often doesn't deliver on fun (too big, too aloof, bad attitude) and the other wanabe high-end that really isn't and is struggling. Cleveland hasn't been enforcing anything regarding the new law ( with the exzception of midnighyt dance ending), however, some downtown clubs are self-policing and have become a little tamer. However, the challenge can sometimes make for better fun.
In the long run the politicians will regret this because of the loss of tax dollars from bar/club revenue and an eventual increase in working girls from the desperate ones--I can see it beginning, but it's not a ground swell.
Interesting to read the other Ohio comments. My experience is that in many other places on Ohio, especially in Columbus, customer expectations (on a mass market scale) are different from those in Cleveland, so the change is not being felt as sharply there.