Lap Dance Ban in L.A.!!??!! What the helll?

[Hanuman]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-reodd&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20030917%2F083704862.htm&sc=reodd&photoid=20030816CASY101

This move is baffling to me. I have never heard of any "trouble" resulting from lap dances-- other than the theoretical possibility of prostitution (which I believe should be legal, anyway).

It is true that we have seen a renaissance of "gentlemen's clubs" (I really love that moniker) in the LA area recently. But as far as I'm concerned, this thriving new industry is employing hundreds, perhaps thousands of dancers, bar tenders, djs and associated service and support personel.

I can almost guarantee that many of these clubs will go under if the dancers are required to stay 6 feet away from the patron. This is just wrong!

[Not a robought]

1. OMG in LA?

lol, whatever.

[radwriter0555]

2. RATS.

So much for my second job.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. OK but let's look at the whole picture

"The ban follows rising complaints by people living near adult cabaret clubs about prostitution, drug use, excessive noise and streets littered with condoms."

These clubs are USUALLY NOT in wealthy areas for GOOD reason. Rich people have more power to keep them out, poor people don't.

People who are socioeconomically disadvantaged deserve better. The clubs certainly could have afforded neighborhood security to ensure their patrons did NOT disrupt the neighborhoods...they didn't care.

Let me ask you...if the clubs were in more industrial areas rather than residential...would this even have been an issue?

[Hanuman]

4. Ok, so there's an argument...

"if the clubs were in more industrial areas rather than residential...would this even have been an issue?"

I have only seen these clubs in more industrial areas. I have not seen them cozily interwoven into a residential neighborhood. The fact that they have been apparently allowed to open up in residential areas seems like a blatant zoning failure.

Stopping lap dances then seems like an attempt to fix a mistake with yet another mistake.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. But for one thing.

CONTACT tends to lead to MORE need for contact than NO CONTACT. I have no idea how the vote came about or what evidence they relied upon in forming their conclusion. Maybe clubs in which there is contact have a higher incidence of disturbance rates than clubs where there isn't. :shrug:

It's worth looking into if you are that concerned. I think communities have the right to regulate commerce for the common good.