Dancer Drug Use are U Responsible?
OK, you're Donald1991 and you're with this luscious 19 year blonde haired blued babe named Mary. Being a generous stud you offer her $50,000 for 5 hours in the VIP. Her clothes come flying off in record time and you're slightly injured so you make note to sue the club in a government court for a few million plus "reasonable" attornerys' fees. Anyway, Mary blurts that with $50,000 she will be able to purchase a week's supply of crack cocaine.
Are you an accessory? A potential criminal? Headed to hell? Or, all 3 unless you stop Mary?
Many years ago this poor soul of an attractive young woman with sores and needle tracks told me that she believed her customers were just as responsible as the dealers and should suffer the consequences. I asked how she figured the customers were responsible. She said without customers she could never afford the drugs and she wouldn't be a junkie.
The interesting point is if the customers believe she will use their money to buy illegal drugs for herself or third parties than perhaps the customer can be convicted of all manner of government crimes. This could open up a whole new avenue of drug entrapment games for the government. The prisons, like the battlefields, are always running low on good human stock.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
24 comments
As for the "blame the customer" girl, I get paid lots of money to do what I do. I make a choice of not spending it on drugs and I certainly wouldn't blame the people who gave me money (aka opportunity) to change things in my life.
Junkies always find a way to afford the drugs.
Talk to some junkies, and they will admit that they could (or will) drop their habit when they really want to.
It can be hard for customers to accept, but they really can't be of any help in these matters.
Now using normal logic if I did report her to the manager, he might do a search for drugs if he can do so legally and fire her or call the police and have her arrested if she had illegal drugs on her. I guess it's the least I could do to help out a struggling dancer trying to kick her drug habit. If only they would tell us that they are using drugs and have illegal ones we could all help these struggling dancers kick their habits. Then they can happily say, the customers helped me kick my drug habit, as she tries to find employment at Walmart.
A fate worse than drug addiction; employment at Walmart. :)
Hear that DEA?!
In the mid 1980's, I had three jobs (at the same time), one of which was a dance instructor. I had a somewhat large and loyal following. It was in a medium sized city. One day I was approached by a recruiter because they were going to open a Chippendales club. I asked for 24 hours to think about it. That evening, my mother called me and said she heard about the Chippendales club opening and she couldn't wait to go. The thought of having my mother stuffing singles in my G string (and she would've, because she has a very cruel sense of humor) quickly caused me to turn down the offer. Had it not been for that, I wouldn't have thought twice about middle aged and older women paying me to dance.
Wonderful to have the looks and skills to dance at Chippendales. :) Yes, I don't think I'd mind old and ugly women groping me for money as long as they thought I was hot. It would, to me, feel bad if they thought of me as a lower quality dancer.
Women are supposed to be different than men when it comes to groping. If women generally don't mind and I'm sure with some women it just isn't an issue, then that seems like half the battle. Emotionally you need to deal with jerks and unclean customers---seems like enough to reach for DRUGS the stronger the better, imho. :)
If you believe a drug dealer is responsible for the user's drug habit, then it isn't illogical, imo, to also hold an *informed* customer responsible. User gets money from *informed* customer and gets drugs from dealer; both are enabling her to continue her habit. True if the customer didn't supply the the money the user would most likely find an alternative, but the same could be said if the dealer refused to sell. Before one says well the dealer is breaking the law, it is very possible that under the situation I've outlined the customer is also breaking the law. Imagine if an Arab told a customer that with the $50,000 the customer was supplying he would use that money to buy material for a "dirty bomb" in contravention of U.S. statutes. I think most Americans would hold the customer responsible because he is informed of the illegality and yet still buys the product or service that the Arab is selling.
And, the drug addict whose was in extreme agony seriously believed the customers were as guilty as the dealers. I strongly believe the government would agree with her. I believe *she* is responsible, but then again the government is responsible for higher drug prices and or lower quality in many cases, imo.
Does anyong remember the government's anti-drug commercial where a bulldozer starts destroying an apparently happy and successful family's home? The message was that by suppling the dealers with cash even otherwise hardwording upstanding citizens were responsible for drug carnage.
I *think* AbbieNormal supports this government position, but of course I could be mistaken.
Anyway, I generally like the art of the government's anti-drug commercials. I wish the government would do anti-stripper and anti-customer commercials along the same lines; I need all the laughs I can get. :)
Hi Bobbyl,
Unfortunately, for many people *illegality* is the key distinction. We are supposed to work for and police for the government free of charge normally, as well as obey the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of laws, rules, regulations, customs, etc.
Yes, I agree Bobbyl.
However, there is another line of thought the promoters of government control and force often rely on. It goes something like this: just because the government can't or won't control one vice that might be even more dangerous doesn't mean it should ignore others. :( A collary to this thinking is that selective enforcement is fine and dandy. :(
Scalia from what I've read believes equal protection of the laws is an absurdity. In his mind, using history as support, homosexuals have has much right to be free from laws criminalizing sodomy, as murders have a right to be free from laws that make certain killings a crime. He truly can't seem to comprehend the concept of equal protection of the laws. Of course, Bork claimed that a government right takes away as much freedom as it secures. This is the type mentality that is out there so it seems like it is time to start waving the white flag and begging for mercy or better yet the opportunity to serve.
Another huge weapon that promoters of government control have is that it is supposedly the government that has made this the greatest country on Earth. Additionally, the propaganda is that this is a nation of laws and not of men; thus, law no matter how enacted or for what interests has moral force. Most people that I've spoken with have a knee-jerk mentality that it is good to obey the law. I wish they'd read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose about 11 times minimum.
Also: It certainly isn't the government that makes the good things about this country so. It is the people. If you can't see that you must be fucked in the head.
Mister Guy, said something about conservatives seeing people as bad and liberals seeing people as good. I guess I see a better analogy with dogs. One dog is usually nice and friendly and not too dangerous. A pack of them is often blood thirtsy and extremely dangerous. Yes, it the dog pack has order and leaders; just as the government has order and leaders. I think a good dog pack is rare and similarly a good government is rare. Of course, packs definitely work. :(
I don't know if decriminalization is the only solution----it sure beats the government's endless Drug Wars. Perhaps those that abuse and are addicted to drugs and harm others----could be the new target with not only criminal and civil penalties, but humane treatment and real assistance by people who actually care about the addicts. Focus more on seeing the harm causing addict as needing help----help might be as simple as Britains non-AA approach to liberating many alcoholics. Seems crazy, but some people just need lessons on how to drink less and more responsibly---I believe it was MUCH greater success than AA---which claims to be the only way. Punishment should be a last desperate resort when all else has failed. Government taxation if carefully measured can also help reduce demand by casual users. And, instead of spending of this new government money on building an ever larger prison state the money might go toward more social workers. I've been very impressed with the quality of the few social workers that I've met---perhaps it is their low status and low pay----they're doing it because they care.
Tom Hussey of Broward County, was an extremely interesting case. He was OUTRAGED that the judge---a very GOOD man---refused to send him to prison for 5 years which what the law required--NO exceptions. The judge plainly stated to an attorney in my presence that he would NOT OBEY THE LAW in Mr. Hussey's case NO matter how much Mr. Hussey was demanding prison time. To Mr. Hussey the issue wasn't whether serving prison time would help society, he agreed with the judge that the prison time required by law would NOT benefit society----but, the larger issue for him was a judge willfully NOT OBEYING THE LAW merely because he didn't think the law would serve a social good in Mr. Hussey's case. Mr. Hussey believes a judge should follow the law even when it is harmful to an individual or society to do so. The judge iows shouldn't make his own law.
I believe it was Prozac or some other anti-depressant prescribed by a doctor that had the side effect of ending Mr. Hussey's desire to drink alcohol completely. Unfortunately, there wasn't a provision in the law for "cured" addicts so Mr. Hussey's "privilege" to drive could never be restored and he was caught driving without a government license. Yes, mandatory 5 years in Mr. Hussey's case and Mr. Hussey admitted his guilt very aggressively and his need to have the law enforced.
Therefore if the government law makes a stripclub customer liable for addict strippers whose to quibble? :0
FONDL, unfortunately, has a powerful solution to thinking like that, supra: Mandatory military service for the U.S. government. Yes, some veterans don't treat the government as some holy deity to adore and love, but those seem much rarer than in the general population.
I've never read it, but "War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier," by Smedley D. Butler may be an exception to the seeming view of many vets that the U.S government is God and that military service equals "fighting for your freedoms or protecting your freedoms." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922915…
This is that book I was talking about in another thread:
http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Code-Rest…
Interesting concept. So in Miami-Dade where one candidate ran on a promise to be *firmly opposed* to a taxpayer built stadium and the other candidate ran on a promise to be *firmly in favor* of a taxpayer built stadium the people voted and the main issue rallying voters was whether the poor should pay for a rich man's stadium. Anyway, the candidate *firmly opposed* to a taxpayer built stadium won an easy victory. David Paul an attorney who had fought the crooked stadium deal in the courts and lost told me the election was irrelevant. I said NO, one candidate has promised to oppose the stadium so we can still stop the stadium. David Paul laughed and said I'm sorry you actually believe who wins makes a bit of difference. I said you're just bitter about losing in court. He said something like you'll see the stadium is a done deal even when the candidate opposed to the give away wins the election. :(
Of course, David Paul was right. The candidate who ran on a platform opposing the taxpayer built stadium changed his mind only a short time after his victory. To add salt to the wound the candidate's new plan gave even more taxpayer money away. Taxpayers got screwed royally, which was the game.
And, this idiotic corrupt government is the people? The people never even had a real choice. Besides even if an honest candidate wins 51% of the vote and 49% hate his guts it hardly seems like his government IS the people.
Anyway, it is much worse than what I've briefly outlined.
Outside the club can easily turn into inside my home! :) If it was just up to me, then pretty much a lot of things are ok. However, I have to fear government mandates and "suggestions" so: NO illegal drugs, illegal weapons, illegal obscenity (bestiality pics, ok?), boom box, illegal explosives, untaxed cigarettes, stolen goods, evidence of possible crimes, counterfeit currencies or coins, prohibited animals and plants, human remains regardless of religious or scientific need, pirated intellectual property, etc. Basically when inside my home (IMH) stripper needs to be frisked and stripped. :)
ITC, the stripper buying illegal drugs or weapons while servicing me might get my ass arrested so yes I'm concerned about how she spends her dollars especially if those dollars have my fresh fingerprints!!! YIKES.
OTC, if your attorney tells he going to use the $2,000 cash retainer you gave him to push an illegal sawed-off shotgun to blow his brains out, do you: A. Applaud wildly and suggest a partial refund cause you can get him a good deal? B. Immediately contact LEO via 911? C. Advise him suicide is fine after he finishes the legal work you need him to do? D. Lie your ass and tell him life isn't so horrible; and that he needs to go with you immediately to seek medical care? E. Ask for his RolLexx and little black book cause he won't be needing them anymore? F. All of the above?
Regardless of your answer(s) to the multiple choice question above perhaps your stripper is entitled to more or less consideration than you would give your attorney or lawn boy? As the former First Lady Hillary Rodham H. Clit would say it's a village. :)
OTC, if your attorney tells you he is going to use the $2,000 cash retainer you gave him to purchase an illegal sawed-off shotgun to blow his brains out, do you: