Archive for Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Kansas House advances bill putting restrictions on sexually oriented businesses

March 8, 2011, 8:41 a.m. Updated March 9, 2011, 8:49 a.m.


— Restrictions on strip clubs, stores that sell sex toys and other adult businesses in Kansas won first-round approval Tuesday in the state House, even though critics told majority Republicans they were drifting away from their party’s small-government position.

The bill, advanced on a voice vote, contains the proposed Community Defense Act, statewide limits on the locations and hours of operation of adult businesses. The House expects to take final action today, and both sides expect the measure to pass and go to the Senate.

The legislation would require adult businesses to remain closed from midnight to 6 a.m. and prohibit new businesses within 1,000 feet of the property line of existing similar businesses or any school, library, day care center or house of worship. There would be a “no touch” rule for employees and customers, but strip clubs and adult cabarets could still serve alcohol. Semi-nude dancers at clubs would have to keep at least 6 feet away from their customers.

Supporters of the bill said they’re trying to protect Kansans from any damage to communities from adult businesses, which they said include blight, lower property values and higher crime. They said small communities often can’t afford to resist adult businesses that are willing to file lawsuits to challenge local restrictions or adverse zoning decisions.

“This bill protects the rural, low-population areas, very much like my district, that don’t have resources to fight this battle in court,” said Rep. Forrest Knox, an Altoona Republican.

Many critics have argued the bill isn’t necessary and that the regulation of adult businesses is best left to cities and counties. But during Tuesday’s debate, they tried to appeal to Republicans, whose 92-33 majority in the House includes many conservatives who have argued that government is too intrusive and needs to lessen its regulation of private businesses.

Rep. Bob Bethell, an Alden Republican and longtime Baptist pastor, said he doesn’t like adult businesses but is wary of the bill.

“I listen to the principles of the Republican Party, which are smaller government, no mandates, local control, choices,” he said.

Knox acknowledged that he’s spoken often in favor of a smaller, less intrusive government and even has said, “We don’t need government to be our mama.”

“But there’s another American principle that’s just as important,” he said. “It’s traditional family values.”

The House approved a similar bill last year. But in the Senate, where members complained they didn’t have enough time to adequately study the measure, the vote was 20-20.


Jimo 7 years, 3 months ago

Vote for small gov't and end up with big gov't. When will voters learn?

Jan Rolls 7 years, 3 months ago

I'm glad the house is busy working on a jobs plan.

TheStonesSuck 7 years, 3 months ago


TheStonesSuck 7 years, 3 months ago


TheStonesSuck 7 years, 3 months ago

The state is most justified (Constitutionally), when it legislates to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people. Starting from the assumption that we'd like as little government intrusion in our day to day lives as possible, both the smoking ban and the proposed strip club law invade in our lives, to a degree. The smoking ban is directly tied to protecting the health of KS residents. The correlation between passage of the proposed strip club law, and protecting the same interests (health,safety,welfare) of KS residents is tenuous at best. It looks like legislating morality, which deserves a much higher level of scrutiny. This is, at its core, my main issue with the proposed law. In any case, "the people from the right" are the ones who ran on a ticket of small government... they are hypocrites, is essentially my point.

Peacemaker452 7 years, 3 months ago

The smoking ban, just like this new stupidity, was about controlling people. Quit trying to give either of them some noble purpose.

The answer to both of these non-existent “problems” is to make a personal choice to not frequent establishments that allow activities you don’t like. If you don’t like the smoke, go somewhere else. If you don’t like adult entertainment, go somewhere else. Keep your kids away if you are worried about their being corrupted. (Better check their computer, phone and games while you are at it)

Be an adult and take responsibility, don’t keep expecting the government to do it for you. You can see the results that gets you.

And no, you don’t have a right to work in a smoke free environment if you knew smoking was allowed when you took the job. Quit whining.

William Cormode 7 years, 3 months ago

Without bans it really wasn't possible to go anywhere without being accosted with smoke. Every restaurant had a smoking section and it was unbearable to be anywhere in the building. If the establishment banned smoking then there would be a huddle of people outside the door smoking so patrons would have to walk through the cloud to get in. I may actually go to the Sporting KC matches this summer because to smoke there you actually have to cross the street and be off property.

Smoking is long term suicide and suicide is illegal right? Smoking causes health problems which in turn increase medical premiums costing taxpayers billions.

It is no ones right to force smoke on another person. People that are not trying to kill themselves shouldnt have to hide in their homes while self-centered jerks parade around killing themselves.

gudpoynt 7 years, 3 months ago

ah... but suppose that there were no smoking ban, and a smoking establishment employed someone with lung problems (asthma, emphysema, etc) and then the establishment later allowed smoking. The employee, for who it is conceivable that they simply could not work in a smokey environment, would be forced to quit. Who's side should the law be on? That of the business, and their right to allow smokers? Or that of the employee, where increased risk in the work environment at the choice of their employer has has forced them to quit?

I'm not siding with either one. Just saying that the smoking ban is an effort to guarantee employees a safer environment at the expense of their employers. Yes, it absolutely does take away one right of business owners (to allow smoking) and literally gives it to the business's employees (to work in an environment with as few extraneous and preventable hazards as is reasonably possible).

If you argue that 2nd hand smoke is not hazard, then that should be taken up with the scientists who study it. But claiming that all the smoking ban does is take away the rights of business owners, is to ignore the right that it gives employees. To argue that the employees don't deserve that right, well, apparently enough people disagree with you such that you are in the minority.

Peacemaker452 7 years, 3 months ago

It is the owner of the establishment’s right to decide, not yours or the governments. If the owner doesn’t care to lose the business of non-smokers it is his decision to make.

BigPrune 7 years, 3 months ago

You wanted your own sections in the restaurants. We gave you that, huh. But that wasn't enough for you. Then you wanted the airplanes. We gave you the whole damn plane! You happy now? I will guarantee you if the plane is going down, the first announcement you're gonna hear is: "Folks, this is your Captain speaking. Look, uhm, light 'em up, 'cause we're going down, okay. I got a carton of Camel non-filters, I'll see you on the ground."

Smoking takes ten years off your life. Well it's the ten worst years, isn't it folks? It's the ones at the end! It's the wheelchair, kidney dialysis, adult diaper years. You can have those years! We don't want 'em, alright?

You all have that friend who's quitting it. I quit smoking. I quit drinking. I quit meat, and I feel great. I get up in at six in the morning and have a nice big bowl of oat bran. Then I go to the bathroom for three and a half hours. I eat another bowl of oat bran and go back into the bathroom for six more hours. All I do is eat and poop, I'm gonna live forever! My colon's the strongest muscle in my body right now. I could pass Elvis through my colon!

gudpoynt 7 years, 3 months ago

read my post above. What if the place was smoke free, and became smoker friendly afterward. What if certain employees did not wish to work in an environment with higher risks to your health? Due to the employers decision, employees must now endure extra risk if they want to stay employed.

Unless the employer could prove that their business function could not be done properly without allowing smoking, then the decision is non-essential, and thus the extra risk to employees is non-essential. The law should be on the side of the employee.

Peacemaker452 7 years, 3 months ago

As I said in my first post, if smoking was allowed when you started work then you get what you get.

If a business had a policy of non-smoking and then changed that policy, then the employees should be able to address that in court.

I am not making any comment on the dangers of second hand, or first hand, smoke. Everyone knows the health issues. The argument that smoking is “long term suicide” is ridiculous. Using that failed logic would lead us to believe that undertaking any action that had any potential for harm would be “attempted suicide”. The “higher insurance premium” issue is also failed logic. You don’t pay anything for my health care. This same line of thought should lead us to banning cars that can go over the speed limit, fatty foods and anyone with a genetic defect.

By the way William, instead of “hiding in your home” why didn’t you open your own restaurant for non-smokers? Think of all the money you could have made. Never mind, it is much easier to have the government do everything for you, isn’t it?

gudpoynt 7 years, 3 months ago

If the employees in question take it to court and lose, then the law is favoring the rights of the business owners over those of the employees. That's not very fair to the employees is it?

If the employees win, then the business would have to stay smoke free. However if a smoking ban is enforced for one business and not for another (that allowed smoking in the first place) then that's not very fair to the business then, is it?

Hence the state wide ban. The rule is much simpler and easier to enforce. And as a one who knows many smokers... get this... they actually like the smoking ban. Haven't known a smoker yet who thinks it was a bad idea. Only outspoken bar owners and outspoken business-rights-first conservative types like yourself. Everyone I know thinks that the cleaner air is a very positive effect, and every smoker I know has the decency to refrain from subjecting non-smokers to their bad habits.

Using your logic of anything carrying a potential for harm could be considered "attempted suicide" is stupid. Driving a car has potential risks. But many people drive their whole lives without any effect on their health. Speeding increases those risks and, guess what, there's a penalty for doing so if you are caught.

Breathing smoke on a regular basis is more akin to taking small doses of arsenic. It's is a slow, steady ingestion of, quite literally, poison. Absolutely it is a type of "long term suicide". Ask any doctor.

Genetic defects can't be helped and so those suffering from them, of course, should not be penalized.

Fatty and otherwise unhealthy foods on the other hand.... just you wait. Higher taxes are those coming up for consideration.

Peacemaker452 7 years, 3 months ago

First and foremost, I am neither a conservative nor a “business rights first” type. I like to think of myself as a Constitutionalist bordering on libertarian with a strong dose of individual rights and limited government. But hey, I also like to think of myself as handsome, others are welcome to disagree on either subject.

The whole point of our court system is to make decisions on cases where there is a conflict between the rights of two people or groups of people. To make a law just so that it is “simpler and easier to enforce” is wrong in my opinion. The problem I have with your argument is that you are representing the employee’s rights as somehow more important than the business owner’s rights. I look at them as two individuals with equal rights, not as poor downtrodden employee and mean, miserly businessman. I doubt we will reach agreement on that point so I will leave it alone.

You agree that driving a car involves risk, and driving too fast increases the risk, just like smoking, but you don’t want to ban cars that can go too fast; then you call my argument “stupid”, that is called hypocrisy. It is too bad that all the people that you know who have ever driven a car too fast don’t turn in their driver’s license to spare us from their bad habits.

I do agree that “health habits” will be used as an excuse for tax policy, but it will unfortunately turn out just like tobacco and booze taxes, used for whatever crazy idea the current crop of crazies in power want.

gudpoynt 7 years, 3 months ago

I'm in favor for what's prudent and feasible. I consider a smoking ban to be among those, as well as traffic citations. Putting a ban on driving because of speeders though, is ridiculous as it sounds, and your attempt to equate the two, while not stupid in and of itself, assumes that I am. Not buying it.

I don't favor an employee's rights over their employer, de facto. I favor fairness. However, in my experience, and in what I've read about the world over the years, the tendency is for the more powerful to take advantage of the less powerful. In small business situations, the employees typically have a significant amount of power because the employer needs them to function. As the business gets larger, and the owners get richer, the human capital required by the employer changes forms, and the level of value and respect that the employer has for the individual employee tends to decrease. Not always, but often enough to notice a grim pattern.

Thus, the incidence of powerful employers taking advantage of their employees is far more common than the reverse.

Exceptions would include when employees unjustly steal from their employers, are fired for refusing to fulfil their worker obligations, or when unions have crippled the production capacity of their employer.

In all of these cases, I would side with the employer.

In this latter case, it is often that the anti-union crowd claim that any strike, or effort at collective bargaining cripples the production capacity of their employer. Not so.

Hinder, yes. That's the point.

Cripple, no, that's exaggerating.

I grew up around Wichita and was around for several Boeing strikes. The strikes hindered productivity. They did not cripple it. That's the whole point of collective bargaining.

kthxbi 7 years, 3 months ago

well here is what our representative had to say when I asked if the Federal and State Affairs Committee could better spend it's time:

I fully support the bill in its current form and will work with all my ability to pass it through the House without amendments.

Thanks for taking an interest in not only your local community but the state as a whole. I feel this bill will address a growing problem in the state. I think the state should regulate this industry because we have the knowledge of how harmful these businesses are to our great community.

Thank you for contacting me.

Take Care,

Anthony R. Brown 38th District

So you know who not to vote for next time!

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

He sent the same canned response to me. He is just grandstanding for himself.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

He will do just what Senator Bartle of MO did. He will lie, cheat, and do anything unethical to show us how moral he is with his strip club law. Bartle is under federal investigation for his role in the MO law passage.

Kim Murphree 7 years, 3 months ago

Yep...and now he has been accepted into the Leadership Kansas grows the ego

Carol Bowen 7 years, 3 months ago

Welcome to the world of digital databases. Do you really think anyone read the message? You can get the same kind of response from any elected representative. There must be some database software out there with the answers provided.

Jock Navels 7 years, 3 months ago

smaller government? you think the republicans will make us buy our own shackles before they shuffle us all off to the mines in Kochistan?

Keith 7 years, 3 months ago

They'll be spending more money we don't have unsuccessfully defending these religious laws.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 3 months ago

Look for an increase in prostitution. There's your free market for you.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

That could be the plan. Recall, last year, KS started seizing assets in prostitution cases. So if prostitution increases, the State can seize more assets....from a "high moral ground" of coure.

mbulicz 7 years, 3 months ago

Ah, yeah, this is such a huge problem in Kansas. I know every time they put up an elementary school, there are six strip clubs opening up next to it within weeks.


7texdude 7 years, 3 months ago

They are going to cut strip clubs and it will result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue for Kansas. Then, to fix the deficit, they will cut schools even more next year. How are the clueless young girls going to make money? Waiting tables?

Great idea, Republicans.

Jan Rolls 7 years, 3 months ago

Why doesn't anyone ask for an accounting of the lottery funds?

midwestarts 7 years, 3 months ago

State owned casinos? Wasn't part of the money from Missouri Casinos supposed to go to the state education program and how many schools did they have to close down because they didn't have enough money raised off of casinos? foolproof my foot.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

What about all these new freshman members of the legislature who ran on the political platform of "small govt", "more freedom", "individual liberities", "civil liberties"? Read the newsletters from many of your State politicians and you will see words like this in thier platfrom. Now, is it time to see if they mean or if they are just hypocrites who want to use these words as rhetoric to get re-elected.

Any many of these politicans ran on creating and preserving job. This will eliminate jobs. We have bigger problems in KS than strip clubs.

What are the real problems with these clubs? And the rational truth this time. We dont need anymore hysterical lies from zealots. Many of these clubs are located in remote areas. And what consenting adults do inside is NO business of the State. The kids dont see that because they are not allowed inside. And if adults dont like what goes on inside....DONT GO IN. But that does not give you the right to shove your moral standards on us via State law. This is a Republic not a Theocracy.

If they want to worry about the kids, then look at where the exposure is. How many times do you see women in bikinis or "nude", as they call it, on the front cover of popular magazines in the grocery store check out isle? It is every day of every week. This is what the kids do see and its right at thier eye level. Stop worrying about what adults do in private. That is irrelevant to raising kids. Mom and Dad do thier deal in private and it is no concern of the govt......neither is this.

notanota 7 years, 3 months ago

If they want to worry about the kids, perhaps they should make sure they're in well-funded schools. Just sayin'.

TheStonesSuck 7 years, 3 months ago

quit being so reasonable. Critical thinking has no place in KS state legislature.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

Go tell them what you think of thier poor prioties. We have much bigger problems than entertaining the lies of zealots.

hujiko 7 years, 3 months ago

Since this past election, the repugnants have only really been passing laws to curtail certain freedoms they view immoral, doesn't look like job creation or small government to me. Thanks for keeping Kansas' best interest at heart you dullards.

mbulicz 7 years, 3 months ago

I'm glad that, in a world fraught with wars, economic turmoil, and corruption, our number one priority is bouncing mammaries. Surely this legislation will stop people from seeing naked people.

I hear the makers of the one-piece swimsuit got a Nobel Peace Prize for their work, as they single-handedly ended the scourge of armed conflicts breaking out at public pools. Scientists began to envision a new world peace, one in which the natural form of the human body was shamed and hidden. We've continued this brave push to legislate morality and criminalize sexuality. They've done well with this approach in the Middle East, a region made peaceful and civil by covering all of their women head to toe. America has worked to adopt this model and become a peaceful society of violent repression.

All good Anglo-Saxton Protestant Americans know the most devastating attack to our freedoms came in 2004 in the form of Janet Jackson's bare breast. The disaster was on a scale so large that scientists now use the metric base unit "nipple" to describe how harmful atom bombs are (with most clocking in at about 10-12 kNips, for perspective). It's so nice that we're funneling time and attention into keeping such a devastating attack from happening again on American soil. I know for a fact that, were another single breast exposed, the horsemen of the apocalypse would draw high for an impromptu mastectomy / armageddon.

And sex shops? They HAVE to go! I hear inner city convenience stores have been held up with bull whips! Where else are all these criminals getting their weapons, like personal massagers and silk nighties? These shops are a danger to society, obviously. Plus, they harm our economy so much by bringing in legitimate tax dollars for legal purchases!

Bravo, Brownback, for keeping us safe from cleavage, dancers, and personal massagers. We can now lead a safe and privileged life like yours: free of naked women, personal enjoyment, and apparent logic.

tolawdjk 7 years, 3 months ago

Clarification please.

is the kNip a kilonip or a killanip? Not that I mind, either one seems like a good time.

mbulicz 7 years, 3 months ago

Kilo, as in one thousand nipples. I also just realized that the top of a mushroom cloud totally looks like a boob.


JayCat_67 7 years, 3 months ago

The same could be said about most politicians.

Steven Berger 7 years, 3 months ago

With our state’s economy in shambles, this is the best our elected officials can do? Instead of trying to help small business create jobs, they are looking for ways to close these businesses which will cut out not only employee wages, but alcohol tax revenue and tax revenue on profits. That is less employed Kansans paying income tax and less sales tax revenue coming into the state’s coffers! What does this accomplish? The only thing any Kansas legislator can say about this is “This will look good to the voters when I run again, even though we will have to cut social services and education while wasting our time in office!” Surely we elected them to do better with our tax dollars. Come on Legislators, there are bigger problems that need your attention than this!

Shane Garrett 7 years, 3 months ago

We should follow our brothers in Egypt and Libya. Take up arms and throw these moral liers out into the street. Long live Free Enterprise.

overthemoon 7 years, 3 months ago

Well. This is amazing. I'm not sure I have ever seen a thread of comments on the LJW that are so consistently in agreement with one another.

For more on the 'Small Gov't' hypocrisy, check out recent voting by the almost 100% GOP legislature in Wyoming. Rachel Maddow has been covering this quite thoroughly though I haven't seen much other press about it. Their bill to ban and not recognize gay marriage was shockingly defeated when a few intelligent legislators started pointing out the disparity between 'Small Government' and legislating morals. As Rachel frames it, 'real conservatives' are starting to resist the pull of the moralistic fringes and stick to their true principles. This is a good thing. Maybe next up will be real discussions about real issues that will lead us back to prosperity.

kthxbi 7 years, 3 months ago

I hope that is true, and not an isolated incident.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

And it passed this House this afternoon in complete disagrement with all these bloggers.

kthxbi 7 years, 3 months ago

I think that is giving them too much credit.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

When I engaged Rep Greg Brown on this issue today. Screw you is basically what he said when I challenged his assertions of "violence and death" at these clubs. I asked him to provide specific examples and convictions of such in KS. He provided nothing but this response. He is determined to believe the lies of zealots.

"You have not presented one cogent point in defense of your opposition to the bill. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate this issue with you further. It is over. The House has passed the bill to final action. It will be voted on tomorrow and it will most likely pass. It is now a Senate issue. Take is up with your senator."

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

That's unfortunate.

You would think it would logically be up to him to make the case in favor of the bill, which he apparently couldn't do well.

bad_dog 7 years, 3 months ago

I can remember a person that was kicked out of a Topeka strip club coming back and killing a couple of people. I also remember a truck driver running a red light and killing a woman in Topeka around the same time (1992 ish). He had been at a strip club outside Topeka and became inebriated. I also recall hearing of numerous fights, stabbings and shootings occurring around any number of night clubs in KC, Topeka, Wichita, Salina, etc. In fact, an off-duty KCK police officer shot a bouncer trying to remove him from a KCMO bar just last weekend. Given the greater prevalance of death & destruction arising from clubs, perhaps we should begin by banning/restricting their operations as well. Then we can move on to banning the automobile. How much illicit sex has occurred in cars? Boggles the mind...

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

I would guess that alcohol is involved in the vast majority of these incidents.

But, you don't see them trying to ban alcohol.

William Weissbeck 7 years, 3 months ago

Logically, you would think locating such clubs next to churches might be a good thing, a requirement. It would definitely put a damper on business and/or increase Sunday collections from those needing to atone for their sins. I doubt this is even a major issue for much longer since you can just about view on the computer anything your heart desires and that can be put on a Visa. Gotta love the guys in Southeast Kansas - shut down the strip clubs, but open up the casinos. I wonder if the tables would be turned, if only the girls charged more and paid taxes.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

Why do so many people vote for legislators that don't seem to do that?

QuinnSutore 7 years, 3 months ago

These clubs, their employees & their patrons probably don't pay any taxes anyway. Good on taking away another distraction so all these people can get real jobs and quit wasting their money.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago


Hope it makes a bit of an impression.

And, I completely agree with the distinction between the location of the club, which may be reasonable to regulate somewhat, and what occurs inside them.

But, you know, this argument leads logically to the idea that prostitution and drugs should be legal as well.

jafs 7 years, 3 months ago

That's fine with me.

But many people don't see the logical conclusion of their arguments, and might argue that it's fine to get a lap dance for $20, but that prostitution still isn't ok.

Kontum1972 7 years, 3 months ago

well we common folk will not know when they have their own prvt parties.....they will just fly in the high class entertainment.....from vegas

pisst...pass that slipper of champagne over this why..plz...and keep the tip....wink wink...

we are off to a good week brings more good news

we will probably invade Missouri...

Kontum1972 7 years, 3 months ago

hey Jess...they probably havent read the constitution.....they probably cant even recite the whole constitution....from memory

JayCat_67 7 years, 3 months ago

Do they have a "Cliff Notes" version of the constitution?

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 3 months ago

Yay! The GOP is bringing us more freedom and liberty!

Shane Garrett 7 years, 3 months ago

I say death to these tularemia tyrannical trouble muckers.

TikiLee 7 years, 3 months ago

I just about snorted my lunch out my nose with this one. Good job. :)

riverdrifter 7 years, 3 months ago

"They're economic dead-ends," Knox said.

Being from Altoona, Knox should know all about economic dead ends. If a sexually oriented business opened in Altoona it would be no worse than the third largest business in town.

4getabouit 7 years, 3 months ago

This is just the beginning. The beat of the bible-thumpers grows stronger every day.

midwestarts 7 years, 3 months ago

My question is...when was the last time our law makers in this state read the Communist Manifesto by Engels and Marx? I read it not too long ago and the current stuff that is happening in this state seems to be following that book pretty closely in policies and theories...

Doug Fisher 7 years, 3 months ago

And I set back and laugh from that Mountain state to your west at all you fools who voted for these clowns. God, Kansas is in such a sad state of affairs!

naturalist 7 years, 3 months ago

Does something such as this that affects so few people have to be on the agenda before issues that will help employ people and preserve income-generating and service-providing agencies? Sheesh.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 3 months ago

After reading all the above comments I can only conclude that Kansas is one of the most liberal/progressive states around. If, by chance social conservatives are in office, it must be an aberration. Certainly they stole the election and it will be overwhelmingly changed in the next cycle.
Actually, I am no fan of the bill at hand. I've stated in the past that sexually oriented stores should not be near schools, parks or other places children are likely to be. Other than that, I could care less where they are and I don't believe they should be banned.
That said, elections have consequences. I absolutely hope all of you go out and vote in the next election. I hope liberals and conservatives all vote in record high numbers. The greatest threat to democracy is apathy.

Grant_Runyun 7 years, 3 months ago

Don't worry people, in Governor Brownback's inauguration speech, he stated that he wanted the citizens of Kansas to be the freest people in the world, so a veto should be a guarantee.

Paul R Getto 7 years, 3 months ago

The American Taliban, Kochkansas chapter, seems to be on the right track. I hope they don't discover people are naked under their clothes; they might mandate everyone wearing two sets just in case the first one falls off. Maybe this could lead to school uniforms too?

Kirk Larson 7 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, nothin' hotter than a stripper in a Catholic girl school uniform...Wait, no more strippers?

pace 7 years, 3 months ago

I think the media is unfair, what an ugly bunch of faces in the picture. Grim. pursed mouthed, couldn't they have said cheese?

somedude20 7 years, 3 months ago

Not fair! Why do priests get to keep on touching (and groping) in their house of worship but strippers are not allowed to in theirs? At least in a strip club you know what you are going to get unlike church when you go in to be saved and come out with a scars

nut_case 7 years, 3 months ago

The legislation would require:

Adult businesses to remain closed from midnight to 6 a.m. - Stupid, baseless restriction when bars and other establishments can stay open.

Prohibit new businesses within 1,000 feet of the property line of existing similar businesses or any school, library, day care center or house of worship. - Fair enough, but I don't know of a single instance where this would be in effect currently?

There would be a “no touch” rule for employees and customers, but strip clubs and adult cabarets could still serve alcohol. - There mostly is anyway, from what I remember in my youth. Also depends on what you mean by 'touch'

Semi-nude dancers at clubs would have to keep at least 6 feet away from their customers. - Another stupid, baseless restriction. If you're not touching what is the difference of 6 feet or 6 inches?

Supporters of the bill said they’re trying to protect Kansans from any damage to communities from adult businesses, which they said include blight, lower property values and higher crime. - The 1000 foot rule should help with that, most everything else is just some uber conservative desire to impose their wishes on everyone else.

mizzou_fan01 7 years, 3 months ago

I found this very amusing, i mean there's no touch rule and that Supporters of the bill said they’re trying to protect Kansans from any damage to communities from adult businesses, which they said include blight, lower property values and higher crime. from what i read in the newspaper or even watch the news, there alot more crime happen around regular clubs and/or bars. and im wondering if ppl only base this off of what they hear on the news but never actually been to a strip club? i admit there are some problems in the adult business. but isn't there problems in other clubs. i think they use adult business to make it look like they are doing something about the problems that arise

TikiLee 7 years, 3 months ago

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I agree with mizzou_fan01.

I hear much more about crime around the Grenada, that place up on 9th & Iowa, the Last Call etc. than I hear about crime at the Bird or any other "adult" businesses.

Jaminrawk 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh thank GOD. Because when I think of the state of Kansas I think of high crime rates everywhere because of adult businesses!

Actually, I think of a bunch of Republican bureaucrats that preach "small government" but still want to enforce their belief systems on the people that live here through legislation. Thankfully we have the type of state leaders that want to maintain Kansas' status as a back-water, non-progressive, group of Bible-thumping hicks!

somedude20 7 years, 3 months ago

Looking at the pictures of these House people, they had better hope no legislation gets passed limiting the amount of trips one can make to the all you can eat buffet. Happy they are looking out for me but they should be looking at themselves (if they can see their whole refection in a mirror) and fixing themselves but not little ole me.

What would Charlie Sheen do? (WWCSD) FAILING!!!

fu7il3 7 years, 3 months ago

The economy is crumbling around us, gas prices are skyrocketing, there are political tensions in the middle east as governments attack peaceful protesters, and Kansas hasn't given pay raises in four years due to a stagnant economy with an overwhelming deficit.

Thank God they are addressing the issue of people looking at boobs.

Marcus DeMond 7 years, 3 months ago

“It’s traditional family values” motivating this. I hope they don't decide bikinis are "morally too revealing" when I am at the pool. Where does it end???

mizzou_fan01 7 years, 3 months ago

they forgot that when women work at strip clubs is not cause they not just want money but some of them can't find jobs, cause jobs look into your back ground, you can't have arrest record, you gotta have good credit. and somtimes they just can't find a job cause the economy. so what else can they do to help them support their kids....they will have to look toward us the taxpayers cause they would be applying for welfare checks in the future.

Maracas 7 years, 3 months ago

Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a Kansan, especially when the far right starts doing its knuckleheady stuff in the name of "traditional family values". For fun, try to get them to define "traditional family values". Guess what? They can't. I've asked them.

pace 7 years, 3 months ago

I wonder if legislators realize when they protect "traditional" family values they actually have sworn an oath to their duty of protecting the rights of untraditional family. Traditional family values include cheating husbands, slapping the kids around and keeping the secrets. Protect nontraditional people's rights, those that value their word, kindness, found family, friendship. The word traditional does not mean good to me. Old dogs covering up the leavings of other old dogs.

Ken Lewis 7 years, 3 months ago

I had several KS "representatives" tell me they were not suprised at the overwhelming number of blog comments opposing the bill on the State's local news outlets......but they voted for it anyway. They just dont care what you think.

KC Star wont touch it. I guess they dont want anyone to know until it has passed the Senate and it is too late to comment. The legilsature is rushing to get this through before anyone can comment.

They call this the "Community Defense Act". And they say they are not running them out of business. Well if the community is the concern then runing them out would make sense. They are passing a law the severely disadvantages them and limits what goes on inside in order to run them financially out of business so they dont have to take direct responsibility. What goes on inside is not a community issue. The community cannot see that unless they patronize the club.

kthxbi 7 years, 3 months ago

Ha! Here is the reply I got from Tom Holland: Dear Ashley - thank you for reaching out to me on this issue!


I guess that means...I have no idea.

true_patriot 7 years, 3 months ago

More big government meddling in the lives of adult citizens and workers. Maybe they ought to focus on job creation and figuring out how to balance the state budget.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.