Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
RAVE Act: RIP Live Electronic Music

By Luminescent in Op-Ed
Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:26:12 AM EST
Tags: Music (all tags)
Music

The RAVE Act, whose acronym stands for "Reducing Americans' Vunerability to Ecstacy", would fine people or companies that organize or host events "featuring loud, pounding dance music" up to $2,000,000, and allows promoters to be jailed for up to 20 years, without requiring officials to prove that any of the attendees actually possessed drugs. This law not only is a danger to civil liberties, but also would effectively eliminate live electronic music in the US, given the enormous risks now associated with it.


Senators Durbin (D-IL), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA) and Leahy (D-VT) introduced this bill on June 27th. The full text is available here, or it can be found by going to thomas.loc.gov, and searching for S2633. Examining parts of the bill, we can see that its name is misleading, and the Senators actually intend it to be much wider in scope:
Sec 2.2) Some raves are held in dance clubs with only a handful of people in attendance. Other raves are held at temporary venues such as warehouses, open fields, or empty buildings, with tens of thousands of people present.
So they want to target not only raves, but also clubs that feature electronic music. It also wouldn't be difficult to imagine zealous drug warriors applying this new law to parties at private residences (an unlisted type of "temporary venue").

It seems like even the most responsible actions by promoters are being used against them:

Sec 2.4) Many rave promoters go to great lengths to try to portray their events as alcohol-free parties that are safe places for young adults to go to dance with friends, and some even go so far as to hire off-duty, uniformed police officers to patrol outside of the venue to give parents the impression that the event is safe.
They actually attempt to demonize promotors for hiring security personnel. At nearly every electronic music event, the promoters responsibly require everyone to be searched for weapons, at the doors. Off-duty policemen and other security personnel are present to ensure everyone's safety. As the saying goes, "No good deed is left unpunished".

The bill finds that drugs and electronic music are inseperable, and that rave promoters exploit children for profit. The following passages are especially important (emphasis mine):

Sec 2.3) The trafficking and use of `club drugs' [...] is deeply embedded in the rave culture.

Sec 2.5) [...]Raves have become little more than a way to exploit American youth.

Prosecutors could use these findings to argue that anyone who hosted an event with electronic music was hosting a rave (as per their overly broad definition of "raves" in Sec 2.1, as "all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music"), and thus knew that they were encouraging drug use. Finally, we connect the dots by observing the specific changes they make to a preexisting drug law, on crack houses:
Sec 3.A) It shall be unlawful to manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.
Since they spent the entirety of Section 2 defining raves as merely events where promoters exploit and profit from drug using youth, on property they temporarily control, it's easy to see why this law is so frightening to those who would try to organize raves, or other electronic music events which might be mistaken for raves.

Events with electronic music are quickly becoming the latest casualty in The War on Drugs, despite the "right of the people peaceably to assemble" provided in the 1st ammendment in the Bill of Rights. Contact your senators, and tell them why they should vote NO on S2633 if you don't want to let this happen.

---

Footnotes

The $2,000,000 fine + 20 years in jail figure is derived from this law, under which rave promotors (and possibly other electronic music promotors), as well as the people who rent space for their events would be prosecuted, as per Section 3 of the RAVE Act. The bill itself also tags on a civil penalty of $250,000 or double the gross income, whichever is more.

---

This article may be freely distributed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
The RAVE Act...
o Goes too far, and raves should be allowed. 73%
o Goes too far, but something needs to be done about raves. 6%
o Is just about right. 1%
o Doesn't do enough. 3%
o Utilizes a pretty goofy acronym. 15%

Votes: 166
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o here
o thomas.loc .gov
o Sec 2.1
o a preexisting drug law, on crack houses
o Contact your senators
o this
o GNU Free Documentation License
o Also by Luminescent


Display: Sort:
RAVE Act: RIP Live Electronic Music | 333 comments (285 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden)
I hope it passes. (2.21 / 33) (#2)
by qpt on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 08:02:01 PM EST

I will be genuinely happy if electronic "music" is banned from being publicly performed.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.

And I hope you enjoy live acoustic music ... (4.00 / 7) (#25)
by pyramid termite on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:37:41 PM EST

... and pre-1920 78s and players because everything else IS electronic music. Ah, well. At least Caruso and John McCormick are worth a listen.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Yup....that's a pretty scary bill.... (4.23 / 13) (#6)
by morkeleb on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 08:26:48 PM EST

Although where did you get $2,000,000 from? Is that from section B part 2:

(B) 2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person.

Because part A only says $250,000. Can these things take in a million dollars in one night?

Their definition of what constitutes a rave is pretty huge: all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music. That could also apply to any Dead show I've ever been to. Or any rock concert where they didn't serve alcohol. Or Pervesions or anyt other gothic night club I've been to.

The Christian Right should love this.....they finally have a way to ban that demon rock n' roll that's been turning the kids into head-mashing satan worshippers for well nigh fifty years now!

What the hell is up with all the Democrats sponsoring this pig! Grrrrrrrrrr......
"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
$2,000,000 (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 08:32:54 PM EST

Hmm... Yes, I think I'll try to make that more clear.

It comes from the link "the law it modifies" (at the very end)... The $250,000 penalty is in addition to the crack house law which rave promoters (and who knows who else) would now be subject to.

Thanks for the advice.

[ Parent ]

That's not fair (4.66 / 3) (#136)
by MickLinux on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:48:58 AM EST

I don't know if you were ranting unfairly or trolling -- in the end they are often the same thing -- but your accusation is unfair, as is your opinion of the Democrats.

Let me specify:  you dislike the Christian Right (I am one, by the media's definition), and therefore credit all that you see bad to their fault or pleasure (if you cannot prove fault even to your greatly lowered standards of proof).  

That is unfair.  I, a Christian Right (actually libertarian, but I remember the Elections of 94, and I was thumped squarely into the middle of that demonized group), do not take pleasure at seeing a police state grow up, where huge powers are at the discretion of a few men who are themselves above the law.

Nor are the senators who are pushing this law properly termed Christian.  Nor are the people who abusively enforce (or fail to enforce) the law, within the Dept. of Justice, properly termed Christian.  In each case, the term is held to be representative of what Christians desire (how could you make such an accusation?), and how they behave (Ruby Ridge -- EITHER SIDE?  Waco -- EITHER SIDE?)  and it is not valid.

As many discretionary powers as the government is collecting against rock-n-roll outside the economic purview of the government, that many are being collected against any other group, including Christians.  

It's all about power, but if you want to look at the driving source of the power, look at the DemPublican party, for if you are honest with yourself, the two parties are and have long been indistinugishable on every issue (spending?  abortion? taxation? Constitutional protections?)

Don't point your finger at some nebulous 'them', who simply represents another viewpoint from your own, unless your goal is simply for 'them' to be the first victims of the new government.

As for me, I also think it is interesting how, with this law, a rave carries a financial penalty more than 8 times as high as running a crack house.  Of course, according to the LA Times (and backed up by what news I got when I lived in Newport News) the cocaine comes in via the CIA to the Crips and Bloods gang, which is being given a virtual monopoly around the country by the police, who round up competing gangs when the favored gang is ready to move in.  So maybe our country does now want to criminalize the raves more than the crack.  I really couldn't say.

I make a call to grace, for the alternative is more broken than you can imagine.
[ Parent ]

Christians for Cannabis (5.00 / 2) (#159)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:33:53 PM EST

The Christian Right should love this...

You mean these people? Or would that be the Christian Left?

Perhaps you meant "the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends [or] the Progressive Jewish Alliance?"

"The war on drugs has been an abysmal failure in any practical sense, and the number of people who are being victimized by the war is fairly awful," said Thomas Jeavons, the general secretary of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, a group of Quakers.


[ Parent ]
Christians for Cannabis (none / 0) (#273)
by morkeleb on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:44:44 AM EST

hehehehehe....that was a funny link.

The first thing I thought of when I clicked it was this refrigerator magnet some friends of mine have had on their fridge since we graduated from college.

And no - the Society of Friends is not what I was thinking of when I mentioned the Christian Right. The same people who were getting drawn and quartered in America for teaching slaves to read and helping with the Underground Railroad would probably not have much against rock and roll now.

However - if you are sending your social security checks to Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell - or any of the other scum bags pimping Jesus on the airwaves - then you are probably a member of the great Moral Majority. If you got dropped on your head as a child - and are sending money or voting for these losers - then there is the strong possibility that you may be a member of the Christian Right. If you are a Born Again Christian - there is a strong possibility that you may be sympathetic to the causes these low lifes support, and are probably a member of the Christian Right. If re-runs of the Church Lady skits on Saturday Night Live make you hopping mad - you may be a member of the Christian Right.

That's who I met when I referred to the Christian Right.
"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
By the way.... (none / 0) (#305)
by artsygeek on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:05:11 PM EST

By the way, the Unitarians have adopted a resolution CONDEMNING the War on Drugs....

[ Parent ]
Democrats? (How soon they forget) (3.00 / 2) (#165)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:17:55 PM EST

Why not? George Wallace was a Democrat. Bull Connor was a Democrat.They're not all Kennedies -- some of the most unpleasant people this country has ever seen have been firehose-wielding, "Whites Only", racist pig Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Because it's still fun to bitch about it..... (none / 0) (#286)
by morkeleb on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:08:23 AM EST

I know that most politicians calling themselves Democrats these days are Republicans walking around in bad suits - but that doesn't mean it's still not enjoyable to point the fact out. They're all corporate whores. The Republicans just have more experience at bending over.

The Democratic party also lobbied very hard against giving blacks the right to vote - because when the Republicans used to be the Party of Lincoln - they knew that black Americans would all vote Republican. That didn't last too long. But if Lincoln were around today - I don't think he would be calling himself a Republican. At any rate - the racist southern Democrats you are referring to are in the Republican camp these days, thanks to Reagan.
"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
Sigh (none / 0) (#299)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 11:46:06 AM EST

The Democratic party also lobbied very hard against giving blacks the right to vote - because when the Republicans used to be the Party of Lincoln - they knew that black Americans would all vote Republican. That didn't last too long.
Making the turn-around one of the most remarkable PR jobs in modern history. That "not too long" was better than 100 years -- from before the Civil War, when Democrats found war preferable to black freedom, through the early 1960's, and yet now they feel like the black vote is theirs by right, and most blacks seem to agree. The party of plantation owners, Roosevelts, and Kennedies, somehow recast as the party of the common man -- it's really pretty impressive.

[ Parent ]
the solution... (3.00 / 1) (#181)
by caca phony on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:59:07 PM EST

The solution, my friend, is to give up the loud, pounding beat. ;) Try out some Masonna or Merzbow, as far as electronic music goes- loud pounding and harsh, but almost no beat whatsoever!!! Though pabst blue ribbon seems more popular than e among their fans, so you won't be able to hook up at their shows.

[ Parent ]
*sigh* (3.54 / 11) (#9)
by daniels on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 08:51:46 PM EST

I think we should outlaw supermarkets, because they sell scissors, which were used by the 11-9 hijackers! I mean, come on, what sort of festering cesspit of evil is this? Besides, they hire security guards, but they DON'T WORK! Just last night I saw some kids flogging a couple of Mars bars.

In case you didn't recognize what I think, this is absolute bullshit. Sure, many raves suck as they only have dance (which kind of sucks, but hey, it was how I got into prog. trance), but this isn't about censorship based on taste. In fact, I move to outlaw rock and bluegrass concerts, because they're only attended by hippies, who would spend the whole time smoking up.

Most of the time I fume about .au's Prime Minister being an "arse-licker" (not my words, but accurate), but at least I can still go somewhere and listen to some good trance.
--
somewhere in space, this may all be happening right now
Hahahhaha (none / 0) (#104)
by Disevidence on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:54:50 AM EST

I pissed myself laughing when Latham called Howard an Arselicker. Its the perfect word.

(If your not from Australia, don't ask.)

[ Parent ]

Article forthcoming (none / 0) (#314)
by daniels on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 04:54:43 AM EST

I'm going to write an article as soon as I get the time - of course, it's 8pm now and I still haven't left work, sooo ...
--
somewhere in space, this may all be happening right now
[ Parent ]
Flashback (4.22 / 9) (#12)
by _cbj on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 08:58:43 PM EST

Britain did something similar at least seven years ago. The memorable phrase was "music with a repetitive beat." More pernicious than this, by the sounds of it, as this only attacks specific musical genres by implication. Someone who was less fucked on E (or was it 'a schoolboy scared of girls'?) can tell you Americos all aboot it.

Yes... (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:18:20 PM EST

In fact, there's a sample in an Orbital track "Sad But New", in which a politician (Tony Blair?) is talking about "New age travellers". I believe we're referring to the same thing.

I don't know the specifics of the UK act, but I doubt it was as severe as this new one in the USA.

[ Parent ]

Oh yes, it was much, much worse (4.66 / 3) (#24)
by _cbj on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:31:46 PM EST

Much, much, much worse. Bound to have been.

I don't think the gypo bill was the one I mean. There are all kinds of irregulars whose irregularity has irked recent UK governments, so confusion is understandable, not least by me. The piece of disposable technopop referencing my draconian legislation is Autechre's 'Anti-EP,' with sleeve notes to the effect that two of the three tracks contain repetitive beats and the other doesn't, though proper consultation of a lawyer and a musicologist is recommended.

Looking at it, that EP dates from 1994, so the law, like the music, is around eight years behind over there.

[ Parent ]

Off-Topic: Autechre (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:27:07 PM EST

I just picked up his (their? her?) 2nd peel session, and I'd really like to hear more of their stuff... Can you tell me a good album of theirs to pick up?

[ Parent ]
I recommend: (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Perianwyr on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:27:53 PM EST

Incunabula: Autechre's first full length album (I believe.) If you've seen Darren Aronofsky's "pi" you'll recognize many tracks immediately. I consider Incunabula to be Ae's most "accessible" release. It's more dancey and traditional than much of their later stuff. If you're just trying to get into Ae's music, this is a fine place to get acclimated.

Chiastic Slide: Considered by many to be Ae's best release. Very ambient, and representative of their more groundbreaking work. Listen to it uninterrupted a few times. Although it's certainly more... avant-garde (which is to say less traditionally "musical" than Incunabula) I've been surprised by some of the people who've heard it going in my house and wanted to hear more.

[ Parent ]

Autechre (5.00 / 2) (#152)
by _cbj on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:27:50 PM EST

Amber is very warm, probably my favourite. Incunabula is more from their beaty, earlier style (their best known track 'Basscadet' is on it). Tri Repetae++ sort of in between, perhaps their most widely enthused about. I don't recommend Confield, their newest.

[ Parent ]
Criminal Justice Act (5.00 / 3) (#76)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:19:27 AM EST

I found the law that I was referring to, and which was sampled in the Orbital track!

http://www.urban75.org/legal/cja.html

[ Parent ]

Dreadzone (none / 0) (#233)
by salsaman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:44:55 PM EST

As I recall, there is also the Dreadzone track 'Fight the Power' featuring quotes from the bill.

[ Parent ]
pushing WAY too far (4.46 / 15) (#28)
by KiTaSuMbA on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:40:56 PM EST

In the past few years, a rise in the power of conservative forces in american politics has lead to a series of proposed legislations aiming to "protect" citizens in one or another manner while constraining aspects of freedom previously given for granted in the modern western world. In all those proposed, and some eventually passed, acts the common trait is attacking the tool/means that could be used (though not created with the specific reason) to commit a crime rather than the offencer himself. Hence, we've seen encryption (that was designed to protect privacy) attacked for the possible use in the contest of terrorism, hardware and utilities (designed to provide commodities and fair use in a digital era) attacked for the possible use in infringing copyrighted media and now the very beauty of attacking common human behaviour as partying and live performing art (music in this case) for the possibility of some attendees using illegal drugs.

Why this would never work
I believe it is trivial even for a high school student to see that trying to block the means instead of the offencer is both inefficient and overgeneralising, tampering with other - innocent - people's free will and civil rights. Had this pattern been used and obeyed in former eras we would probably be left at the stone age. Surprisingly enough these very same conservative forces strongly oppose the opinions suggesting at least more control (rather than actually banning) the means & tools used by offenders over another field: firearms claiming that such tools are not solely intended for wrongdoing! I do agree that this is the case and that even a fork or a kitchen knife can be used as a tool for violence (as can easily bare hands and legs actually), thus the stupidity in banning means instead of offencers. In the same vein, rave parties are both the attendees' right to entertainment and the artists' right to express themselves in live performance. Any performing artist will swear to you that a live act is a totally different and overall better experience than a "canned" one (wether this is a disc, a movie, whatever). It is well known that the electronic music followers form a social class where the use of psychotropic, psychostimulant drugs is rather common, but this is in no way different to the rock fans of the late 60's / early 70's abusing an immense collection of different types of psychotropics while some of the artists actually publicly advertised such activities under the form of self-experimentation/entertainment. What would be of today's music scene without the legendary live performances of Pink Floyd, The Doors, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple etc. (I will stop listing here since I could make a couple of pages of band names)? But even more important, do you believe that banning rave parties and/or other live electronic music performances will prevent the "american youth" from using drugs? History teaches us that humans, and especially young ones, have an innate skill of rapidly circumventing restrictions and regulations in one or another way. Banning big-time raves will not prevent people partying and doing so by anyway they like, even if these ways include the use of drugs. As a matter of fact, expect ectsasy and other strong psychostimulants hitting the local dancefloors even harder since ravers will use them as the next best resort to an open rave. Your "innocent, well grown" american youth will then have to deal even more often with those funky little pills and there will be an extra pseudo-moral content in such abuse: the fight for personal freedom against an oppressing state (smells like the hippies or what??!!!).

Why this should never pass even if it worked
The new trait of this proposed act in comparison to the previous ones is that while the latter touched new, or perceived as new in regards to modern technology, and not widely considered aspects of the civil rights, this proposed act plays with fire, as it tampers with well established freedoms such as attending or offering a live performance of ART. I will avoid arguing pointlessly with those ready to dispute electronic music as art: this is *your* personal view, allow others to disagree, I don't see much of an art in Warhol's works but I don't try to enforce my opinion of pop-art on others. Under this way of thinking, some of the best sections of the most famous museums should be rated XXX and be off limits for youngsters as bad influence and proposing nudity. This act crosses the line of annoyance and goes into the field of the ridiculous. What's the next move when it will be proven that drug abuse was not affected? Banning all electronic music broadcasting and discs? Then other musical genres? Then books? This is going to be some great laughs for those of us outside US soil, everytime an american tries to preach over the valor of freedom and it's relation to the 4th of july.

I sincerely hope and do believe that americans will not let this disgusting work against their freedom go by. If you are an american citizen, don't stop at cursing in front of your monitor, do something about it!
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!

That's what we said in the UK (4.66 / 3) (#97)
by Homburg on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:24:35 AM EST

When they tried to pass a similar law (The 'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act'). It'll never get passed (how can they make events featuring 'repetitive beats' illegal?), and even if it does, the police will never be able to stop all the raves. And then it passed, and all but destroyed the free party scene (there are still a few here and there, but they're more of less explicitly protests, rather than raves, these days). You're right that it didn't stop people taking E, though. Now, people just take the pills before they go out.

So fight this as hard as you can, people.

[ Parent ]

Well.. (3.12 / 8) (#29)
by mindstrm on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:42:07 PM EST

Just one point.

Many rave promoters nowadays DO exploit younger people for profit.

Yes, I know there are some great promoters in the scene. There are those who are really into the real spirit of the rave.

And then there are a lot of people who really are simply exploiting.  They or their buddies are supplying the drugs; they make HUGE profits off their raves.

So.. as much as this law is bad, it should be realized that some of what they are saying is true.

A responsible adult can go get all whacked on X and have a great experience, all that peace, love, unity, and respect and stuff. Fantastic'.
I've seen a lot of X-heads who have been going hard for a few years now, and it's definately messed them up.

Supplying drugs (4.33 / 6) (#42)
by Nick Ives on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:22:06 PM EST

Of course, the answer to the promoters who are simply "exploiting" the rave scene by supplying drugs is to legalise ecstacy. That way you can have drug & alcohol free rave's where kids can dance safe and adult raves where you can buy beer and pills (with free water, of course) as a consenting adult. The problem is the criminal element, if people are criminalised for supplying drugs then they are more likely to be criminal and immoral in other ways like stealing drugs from other dealers, selling at a massive profit and burning you with fake drugs.

So basically it comes down to the same old problem, the War on Drugs. If the USA (and here in the UK, I'll add) were to just end this assult on civil liberties so many problems would dissappear and it would be much easier to manage the problem of drug abuse and addiction with money raised through taxation. We can but dream, I suppose...

--
Nick
mrrrreaaaooow!

[ Parent ]

There is a diference between... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Kindaian on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:42:09 AM EST

Plain consumers and "exploited young people"!

The problem of the bill like most bills that have been made latelly is that the diference is way too thin and the wording is very misleading.

Actually, you can be arrested and prossecuted if you do a party at your house and someone brings some drugs to it.

If at the party money changes hands, then you are busted because, even without your knowing, you promoted drugs... and someone profited...

Welcome to 1984...

[ Parent ]

Rave promoters exploit young people (none / 0) (#156)
by PTBear on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:37:12 PM EST

by giving them what they want and charging a little money for it? I would argue that Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network do the same thing. They sell their audience of children to advertisers who would do the same. Even worse, those networks target even younger childen than the rave promoters.

----------------------------------------

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

-Attributed to Sigmund Freud
[ Parent ]

1st ammendment? (3.11 / 9) (#32)
by yodason on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:50:24 PM EST

doesnt this sound like it has 1st amendment issues? I mean, this seems to violate the right to conjugate as groups and the right to free speach (music)....

heh. (4.60 / 5) (#34)
by kaemaril on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:53:10 PM EST

I think probably only language classes conjugate as a group :) OTOH, if we're talking congregation... I dunno, would it? Trying to ban a whole type of music, OTOH, certainly sounds like one honking great First Amendment case in waiting ...


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?


[ Parent ]
Conjugate means to join together. (none / 0) (#193)
by traphicone on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:20:06 PM EST

On an unrelated note, the water I spilled on my keyboard has shorted out my space bar. This means I have to copy spaces from the text on the page and paste them into my posts until I get it fixed.

"Generally it's a bad idea to try to correct someone's worldview if you want to remain on good terms with them, no matter how skewed it may be." --Delirium
[ Parent ]
Yes, I know. (none / 0) (#223)
by kaemaril on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:01:42 PM EST

Sorry to hear about the water. But if you're using Windows can't you use ALT+032 or something?

Incidentally, I know what conjugate means. I also know that it's (99.999% chance) a typo for congregate :)


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?


[ Parent ]
Heh. (none / 0) (#253)
by traphicone on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:35:55 PM EST

I figured you did.

As for the keyboard, CTRL+V is shorter than ALT+032, but it's a moot point as now that it's dried out everything works again.

"Generally it's a bad idea to try to correct someone's worldview if you want to remain on good terms with them, no matter how skewed it may be." --Delirium
[ Parent ]

OK, some comments (4.50 / 18) (#37)
by pyramid termite on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:01:53 PM EST

The bill is to amend a current law. Even though the findings section talks about loud pounding dance music, that's not going to be written into the law that's being amended and would only have effect as evidence as to what the intent of Congress was in passing this amendment.

The main thrust of any case brought under this law will be whether a place was rented, owned, etc. with the purpose of allowing drug use or sales. Unfortunately, the burden and danger of defending such a case has already been shown to be so much that club and rave operators have struck deals to have the clubs closed and the charges dropped, rather than go to the risk and expense of fighting it. What this bill actually does is make it easy for the government to put any promoter out of business.

I hereby suggest that someone starts a Church of Peace, Love, Unity and Respect, which will have gatherings at which the Holy Sacrament of Loud Pounding Dance Music will be shared by the faithful.

Either that or just rename them Anti-Drug Rallies.


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
i'm kind of looking for a new religion (none / 0) (#257)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:33:46 PM EST

i'll join if i be a preist :)
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
interesting topic but, (3.75 / 8) (#38)
by cicero on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:09:07 PM EST

you're over-reacting. If you actually read the first line under "A Bill" (before section 1), you see this
To prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purposes.
My reading of this is that it would have to be proven that the promoter (or person being charged under this bill) is making the venue available for the purpose of doing one of the drugs that they list. That requires proving intent, and that's not an easy thing to do, at least not as easy as you make it out to be.

anyway, the sky's not falling, and no one's going to take away your parties. These events are already ridiculously regulated.


--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
Given their findings... (4.00 / 1) (#48)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:34:06 PM EST

It would be quite easy for any prosecutor to point to all of section 2, and say that since they were promoting a rave, of course its purpose was to profit from drug use. I don't know what weight the "Findings" in section 2 would carry, but they probably would be sufficient to change the music of many night clubs, and make it much more difficult for promoters to find venues willing to risk renting them the space.

[ Parent ]
No (3.00 / 1) (#86)
by cicero on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:10:15 AM EST

proving that the purpose of the rave is to promote drug use is going to be difficult. That's what i'm saying. Proving that there's drug use would be trivial, but they need to prove that the promoters held the rave for the drug use and not for the music (with the drugs being a side effect)


--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
[ Parent ]
Civil Forfeiture (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by cyberformer on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:08:29 PM EST

But do they really have to prove anything? The "War on Drugs" in the US allows the police simply to take posession (without proof) of any property that they suspect could be the proceeds of drug dealing. This bill seems to expand that. Club owners obviously don't want the police taking their clubs away, so they'll stop hosting any event that could possibly be construed as a rave.

[ Parent ]
Sort of. (none / 0) (#185)
by cicero on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:20:15 PM EST

How many club owners do you think it would take, suing the DEA to either
  • get this over-turned
  • get the DEA to actually make sure that the purpose of the event was the distribution of drugs / profiting from the use of drugs / exploitation of children.

Look, I agree that this is a stupid bill, but it seems to be worded in such a way as to make it almost useless in the legal world. It could be used to harass event promoters (honestly, I haven't seen any parties in actual clubs in a long time. Beach, woods, hills, that's where they are. Not at your local dance hall), but it seems that this bill could almost be used as a defense of the promoters. The impetus would be on the prosecutors to prove that purpose of the event was the drugs, and not the music. And that's going to be damn hard.


--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
[ Parent ]
off to committee (3.88 / 9) (#39)
by dr k on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:15:04 PM EST

These kinds of things are usually done to placate noisy parents and other victims of whatever Horrible Thing is destroying today's youth. Now the Senators can point to this bill as evidence of their good faith, meanwhile the bill will get sent off to some committee for review and never be seen again.

Or maybe not. Maybe they really do plan to vote on this. But then the chances are high that the House version will get sent off to committee.

Meanwhile, since it is clear that there is a lot of money being made off of the, er, electronic music scene, that means that the legitimate businesses are going to make a lot of noise about this - hopefully a very loud, repetitive noise with a good acid line.


Destroy all trusted users!

Extremely misleading introduction: (4.00 / 11) (#40)
by Aaorn on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:16:32 PM EST

>> would fine people or companies that organize or host events "featuring loud, pounding dance music" up to $2,000,000, and allows promoters to be jailed for up to 20 years, without even requiring officials to prove that any of the attendees actually possessed drugs <<

I couldn't see that anywhere in the bill, looking at the actual text on http://thomas.loc.gov (there's no permanent link to the bill itself, but you can find it easily with a search for RAVE). I saw the origin of your misleading quote, in the findings section:

(1) Each year tens of thousands of young people are initiated into the drug culture at `rave' parties or events (all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music).

However, under penalties, I didn't see anything that stated or implied that the fine could be given "without even requiring officials to prove that any of the attendees actually possessed drugs", as you said. The infractions were not related to "loud, pounding dance music" as you lead us to believe, but were as follows:

`(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'.

`Sec. 416. Maintaining drug-involved premises.'.

Despite this misleading intro, however, I voted +1 - I found reading the bill to be an eye opener, and look forward to further discussion.

I added a footnote (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:30:43 PM EST

To explain where I got this figure from. I assume you posted this while it was still in the editing phase. Thanks to everyone who questioned where I got this figure from, your feedback helped.

[ Parent ]
Scaremongering (3.50 / 14) (#47)
by AmberEyes on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:31:58 PM EST

Ridiculous.

"Events with electronic music are quickly becoming the latest casualty in The War on Drugs..."

No, events with electronic music and illegal drugs are quickly becoming the latest casualty in The War on Drugs.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
Part of my point... (3.00 / 4) (#52)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:45:14 PM EST

Was that having such a broad, and vague definition of raves would have a chilling effect on all live electronic music events. Who wants to risk 20 years jail time over renting their property to some college kids who say that they'll make sure there isn't drug use? (And what a difficult thing to try to promise! The US government has been doing its best for many years to try to eliminate drug use, in their domain, with no results.)

[ Parent ]
OK... (4.00 / 1) (#58)
by AmberEyes on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:58:30 PM EST

But you could make that point much better, and appear to not be purposely spreading disinformation by being honest about the crackdowns.

The government doesn't care if my friends and I go to a rave. They really don't care if I go to a rave where drugs are being used by other people -- they care when that drug use is going on without the people who owned and rented the property cracking down on preventing it.

Part of the PLUR culture is to respect people, which apparently is one of the reason that so many rave goers don't seem to get screened by those holding the raves, etc. But, if I was holding a rave, I'd sure as hell be screening everyone who walked in, because I'm responsible for them while they're under my roof. If they can't play nice, they don't play at all.

But whether that's right to do or not isn't why I wrote my original post. I wrote my original post because you sunk to the level of being purposely vague to get attention. And being purposely vauge, and exaggerating the severity of what is happening, you are doing just what the people who you are criticizing are doing, so you say. And that's why your entire article reads like paranoid garbage, and why I -1ed it. You'd have an excellent article (and one I'd vote up gladly) if you'd drop the scaretactics.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
On scaretactics, and then (4.00 / 5) (#63)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:22:01 PM EST

If I am using scaretactics, I appologise. Speaking honestly, this bill really scares me. So, if I am unintentionally using scare tactics, it's out of genuine fright, not intentional manipulation.

I would consider asking you about what specific edits you would make, but it's already in the queue, and there's quite a bit of comments that I fear would be lost. Is there any way to rescue something from the queue, edit it, and the put it back, while keeping the comments? (I'm a long time lurker, and this is my first article)

Getting more to the topic at hand (emphasis mine):

The government doesn't care if my friends and I go to a rave. They really don't care if I go to a rave where drugs are being used by other people -- they care when that drug use is going on without the people who owned and rented the property cracking down on preventing it.
Most people would consider that the role of police officers. And I've seen quite a few police officers arrest people at raves for that very thing. The government isn't supposed to be able to force citizens to behave as police. If you invited me into your house, and I burned a little american flag (if such an act were illegal), would you be forced by law to turn me in, or stop the flag from burning? No, because you aren't a police officer, so the state can't compel you to do such things.

That's the argument, anyway. If you spot any holes, or have a different perspective, I'll be waiting for your response.

[ Parent ]

Answer (none / 0) (#169)
by AmberEyes on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:58:38 PM EST

You are responsible for your property, and the actions that occur on it. This is why I can sue you if I happen to fall into a large pit that you have next to your front door, after falling off your rickety staircase. Or why I can sue if my daughter falls into your swimming pool and drowns.

A nightclub owner is responsible for his property, and making sure that illegal acts don't occur on it -- in this case, they must act as a policing force to enforce that. When they don't, the hammer falls on them -- this is their choice; while not forced to report, they reap any punishment that may occur should something serious happen because of their lax judgement.

I agree with this, actually, especially in the case with raves. Raves are not about drugs, and were never intended to be. Kandy Kids and ravers high on nitro make real ravers look bad. Raves are about dancing and listening to good music -- not popping pills. Do that on your own time if you're going to.

-AmberEyes


"But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
[ Parent ]
Question (none / 0) (#179)
by synaesthesia on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:41:48 PM EST

Raves are not about drugs, and were never intended to be.

Could you please provide supporting evidence for this strange assertion?



Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
Drugs have become a part of rave culture (3.27 / 11) (#51)
by Demiurge on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:42:15 PM EST

So what's wrong about holding promoters accountable if they promote(implicitly or explicitly) ecstacy use at their raves?

For one thing... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by dipierro on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:01:58 PM EST

the tenth amendment. This is not interstate commerce, as much as congress twists its arguments to claim that it is.

[ Parent ]
Interstate Commerce (3.66 / 3) (#70)
by ti dave on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:39:09 PM EST

If so much as one car-load of kids crosses the state line to attend a "rave" and they end up hospitalized, Congress will invoke the Tenth Amendment, and the current/future SC will back them up.

That's a guarantee.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
I don't deny that... (4.50 / 2) (#74)
by dipierro on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:54:29 PM EST

In fact, even if no one crosses any state line to attend the "rave", and no one ends up hospitalized, and none of the drugs cross state lines, Congress will still invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court will back them up. Doesn't mean I agree with them. And neither will Clarence Thomas, most likely, as he hinted in his concurring opinion.

[ Parent ]
And that... (4.00 / 2) (#81)
by ti dave on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:48:04 AM EST

that would be the first reasonable opinion "Justice" Thomas will have rendered from the bench.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
the problem (4.66 / 3) (#62)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:21:46 PM EST

Is that even though who honestly don't want drug use at their raves will probably be hit under this law, since it sees the very act of having a rave as implicitly promoting drug use. Since it's nearly impossible to search people thoroughly enough that they can't slip in little white pills, what is a responsible rave-promoter supposed to do, besides go out of business entirely?

[ Parent ]
Where do you see that in the bill? (2.50 / 2) (#64)
by Demiurge on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:27:19 PM EST

`(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'.

The bill seems to be an attempt to crack down on rave promoters who encourage drug use at their venues.  There's nothing in there that can be interpreted as an attempt to shutdown the entire electronic music scene.

[ Parent ]

A matter of control, and perception (4.60 / 5) (#69)
by Perianwyr on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:37:36 PM EST

I can't think of a time I saw a rave event promoted as "a place to go and take Ecstasy all evening."

Couldn't it be argued that by holding a public showing of Pink Floyd's "The Wall", you're encouraging drug use? After all, drug users have historically been represented well among Pink Floyd's fans.

The test proposed by this law seems to be twofold:

1) Is drug use significant in the culture of the place involved?

2) Does actual drug use take place at the location?

Under these conditions, couldn't it be argued that nearly *any* rock concert is a tacit encouragement of drug use and the moral equivalent of a crack house? To show one example out of very many, Tool has significantly pro-drug themes in a good deal of their music. What about Third Eye Blind's "Semi Charmed Life?" Certainly, neither of these concerts (generally presented in venues sponsored by the likes of Miller Brewing Company and Anheuser-Busch) have been busted for "making available a place for the use of a controlled substance."

Clearly, this is a bill that's not going anywhere for this reason- but isn't it a rather disturbing picture that it paints?

[ Parent ]

Hmm.. (3.64 / 14) (#54)
by blankmind on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 10:46:58 PM EST

The bill finds that drugs and electronic music are inseperable [sic], and that rave promoters exploit children for profit

And you think otherwise? Have you ever been to an electronica oriented event? After 2 years, I can honestly say that I never attended a rave or ravey-club without seeing tons of drugs. Sad, but true.

And the whole "exploiting children" thing -- HAH!

First of all, 90% of ravers are angsty, e-tarted teenagers. Basically, they are children. Sad, but true.

Second, do you know how much security guards and other "higher ups" make off bribes from drugdealers? More than a few bucks, so yea, they are profiting off the exploitation of children. Sad, but true.

Anyhoo, I do think that this whole Bill is an overkill; but maybe you are fighting the wrong battle?
--------
I have been trolled.
drugs are inseperable... (none / 0) (#92)
by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:26:55 AM EST

from anything that lines up at that particular era and social conditions as the best "appetizer". So you have a problem with electronica? That's an opinion, please let us know what would you like your kids to have drugs with!
Teenagers will always find a more or less good excuse to use drugs. Sad, but true.
Don't accuse whatever appeals to them as a hype at their time. Rock was my parents' time hype. They never accused it for the well-known abuses of the late 60's.
Better results can be obtained by letting teenagers know all about how they are going to fry their brains and bodies in *their* language. Preaching them is no use, *showing* them can be very effective though. There has been a campain here (italy) by the very club owners and rave organizers distributing "fact" leaflets in the events with the major point being not overdoing and not mixing: people were tired of having dead bodies on their dancefloors and after an initial bruhaha, acute MDMA intoxications and related deaths were severely reduced. In the meanwhile, the ministery started a tv-commercials series using teenagers' own hot points and words. It was apt, straight to the point and pretty "cool": it passed the teenagers' "don't-you-preach-me" firewall like butter. Although it is rather early to tell, I'd bet you it convinced some kids not trying drugs to be "cool". In another european country (greece) the relative campaign was designed to hit teenager "angst" in the balls: no preaching, no words, just pictures... "people die of drugs" kept coming in mind.
If you push electronica out of the clubs, something else will pop in to replace it in zero time and you'll never know what hit you (you can't obviously expect teenagers to "chill out" and have fun with what they would define, and in some extend would be correct, politically correct bigottery disgised as music).

 
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]

Actually, I absolutely love electronic music... (none / 0) (#195)
by blankmind on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:28:09 PM EST

So you have a problem with electronica?

No, I have a problem with the pill-loving, meth-headed, k-hole induced kids that attend electronica events and call themselves 'ravers.' They are just a bunch of burnouts who give electronic music a bad name.
--------
I have been trolled.
[ Parent ]
yeap (5.00 / 1) (#204)
by KiTaSuMbA on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:48:08 PM EST

First of all a small explaination, the "you dont like electronica" was not directly intended on you but on a fair amount of the people backing this act (with qpt's post mostly in mind).
I also agree that pill-driven teenagers are not the best thing for the genre. My point is that you can't hope they quit drugs because there is no "repetitive music" (when was electronica more repetitive than other "western" music genres?). Electronica received them as fans since it's today's hype, rock received the burnouts in the 60's because it was those days' hype. You are practically arguing that popularity and the subsequent commercialization of a music genre spoils it. I definately agree with this, but it's the life cycle of any other "succesful" music genre, why should electronica be a different case? Bear with them, even make fun of their fluorescent sticks and keep watching the underground where all the experimentation is done. But this is no reason to propose such an act... It's not going to work and it will just make some people feel bad and constrained.  
There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
[ Parent ]
I agree, Mr. Kita :) (none / 0) (#205)
by blankmind on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:52:59 PM EST

As I noted in my previous post, this Bill, if passed, will be worthless.
--------
I have been trolled.
[ Parent ]
Misleading galore. (2.22 / 18) (#61)
by Work on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:11:42 PM EST

If you're going to promote some agenda, you damn well better do it honestly.

-1 for this garbage writeup.

When determining the effect of laws... (3.33 / 3) (#66)
by Luminescent on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:30:01 PM EST

...One must make connections if they aren't spelled out explicitly. I tried my best to understand what all of these individual points might mean, in aggregate, and do a write-up that explains in detail how I make my conclusions. I tried to quote every item I referred to, so if a reader thinks I might be misleading, the orignal source is there to either confirm these suspicions, or back me up.

Can you please tell me what parts of my article you dislike? I can't improve my writing if the only feedback I get is "Misleading galore", with no specifics.

I'm genuinely interested. Please tell me what you find wrong about my article.

[ Parent ]

I'll tell you what. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by majubma on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:49:32 AM EST

Your opening sentence,
"[The RAVE act] would fine people or companies that organize or host events "featuring loud, pounding dance music" up to $2,000,000, and allows promoters to be jailed for up to 20 years, without requiring officials to prove that any of the attendees actually possessed drugs"
is completely and utterly false. You are interpreting findings as actions. If this bill were to be passed, the only changes made to U.S. Code would be the following modifications to a section of the 1970 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control act: (I have marked insertions in bold, and deletions in brackets:
(a) Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful to -

(1) knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance;

(2) manage or control any [building, room, or enclosure] place, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the [building, room, or enclosure] place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.

See? Drugs. Not music. Drugs.


--Thaddeus Q. Thaddelonium, the most crookedest octopus lawyer in the West.
[ Parent ]

You have good points... (none / 0) (#168)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:32:41 PM EST

If I could go back, and resubmit my article, I think I would have toned it down, as you and many others have suggested. I should have emphasized that I feared that the findings alone (especially if they were pointed out by an irrate Demand Reduction Coordinator, as funded in Section 7) would be sufficient to scare promoters, or those who would rent out space for a party.

I believe that I was accurately describing the effect I thought the law would have, though I could have done a much better job of describing how I thought this effect would be accomplished.

At minimum, your feedback, and that of many others here, will help me if I try to write articles about this for other publications, such as newspapers. Thank you.

[ Parent ]

Oh wow, good point (none / 0) (#290)
by Rogerborg on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 06:53:47 AM EST

    Drugs. Not music. Drugs.

Phew, you're right. It's a good thing that when trying to resolve borderline situations, judges don't ever consider the context of law to determine whether the intent of Congress was to have them apply to any given situation, right? I mean they don't ever do that, right? Right?


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

You made it sound like dance music was a crime (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by rcade on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:37:21 AM EST

Reading the actual proposed law, it's clear that the expanded crime is being in control of a site or event with intent to sell, distribute, profit from, or use drugs. There's nothing in the proposed law change about loud music. If someone holds a country music line dancing party with the intent to get the necks hooked on moonshine, or a networked Internet gaming party with the intent to get the geeks hooked on illegal Mexican vanilla, they could be prosecuted under this act.

That's what's misleading about your article. Maybe there are problems with the law, but it doesn't illegalize raves. It illegalizes some behavior that's commonly associated with raves, but a lot of that was already illegal anyway.

http://workbench.cadenhead.info
[ Parent ]

Movie Theaters (4.05 / 20) (#67)
by thelizman on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 11:30:23 PM EST

Because rave promoters know that Ecstasy causes the body temperature in a user to rise and as a result causes the user to become very thirsty, many rave promoters facilitate and profit from flagrant drug use at rave parties or events by selling over-priced bottles of water and charging entrance fees to `chill-rooms' where users can cool down.
or how about....
Because movie theater operators know that salty popcorn causes the blood pressure in a user to rise and promotes water retention and as a result causes the user to become very thirsty, many theater operators facilitate and profit from flagrant popcorn consumption at movie theaters or events by selling over-priced bottles of water and charging entrance fees to `air conditioned theaters' where users can cool down.
Excuse me, Misters Durbin (D-IL), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA) and Leahy (D-VT), but you Sirs are fucking morons.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
The obvious difference (2.75 / 4) (#107)
by gibichung on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:15:46 AM EST

is that popcorn is legal, and "Ecstasy" is not. Profiting from popcorn use is okay.

You've actually done a fine job of proving their point. Whether this was intentional or not, I'm not sure.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

You Have Done A Fine Job Of Missing The Point (3.66 / 3) (#118)
by thelizman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:49:03 AM EST

It doesn't matter if ecstacy is legal or not. This bill seeks to punish people for doing a legal activity - selling water - simply because it is done concurrently with an illegal activity.

Let's put this in perspective: Drug stores sell psudophedrine. Psudophedrine goes into making methamphetamines. So, why don't we shut down all of the drug stores who sell psudophedrine and put thier owners in jail for 20 years?

BTW, a bottle of water at a "rave" held in a commercial club is usually about $1.00. Most of the really good raves are self organized, and the water is free or BYOW. Water at a sporting event or movie theater, $3.00 and you're not allowed to BYOW even if it means you'll die of heat stroke.

I'm sorry folks, but this is bullshit. These "senators" have better things to do with their time, and this is really an issue that needs to be handled ad the local level. Raves are not a problem in most places. There's more drug activity going on at your average high school.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
concurrently (3.00 / 2) (#123)
by gibichung on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:16:02 AM EST

This bill seeks to punish people for doing a legal activity - selling water - simply because it is done concurrently with an illegal activity.
A self-serving interpretation. This bill punishes people for promoting drug use, providing a location, and profiting from this crime. No one is being punished for selling water or renting rooms, but this is adequate evidence that they're aware of what is happening and making no effort to carry out their responsibility to stop it. Instead, they're using this knowledge to make money.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Heh. (none / 0) (#161)
by dark on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:37:46 PM EST

The concept that people who dance a lot and get sweaty might also get thirsty is alien to you?

[ Parent ]
re: Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by gibichung on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:52:19 PM EST

Is the concept that "supporting evidence may prove nothing by itself, but taken in context support an ultimate conclusion" alien to you?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
And of course, who provides the context? (none / 0) (#192)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:17:50 PM EST

Why, the accusers, of course. Congratulations, Gibichung - you've seen the light and become a Postmodern Deconstructualist. Yeah, I know you hate the idea, but that's precisely what you did here ...
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
You obviously haven't read the bill... (none / 0) (#217)
by thelizman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:33:12 PM EST

Read the findings in this bill...I quoted the passage. They have worded it loosely enough to shut down any establishment where someone is found to have bought, sold, or used drugs regardless of their connection or lack thereof to the business owners. There is certainly nothing self serving about this interpretation.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
ecstasy is illegal (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by sangdrax on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:27:38 AM EST

Yes, but it is illegal to sell ecstasy (and probably to know that people sell it in your club) and it is legal to sell salty popcorn.

[ Parent ]
Legality of Ex Not At Issue (none / 0) (#116)
by thelizman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:40:27 AM EST

It doesn't matter if ecstacy is legal or not. That is a totally unrelated issue.

Allow me to put this stupidity into perspective. This is like saying that ambulance drivers, knowing that drivers who have been in accidents will die if not transported to the hospital, are wantonly making a profit from drunk driving victims by charging outlandish transport fees.

It is quite simply the finest form of tyranny to attack the symptoms of a problem instead of the source. And quite honestly, this whole bill demonstrates complete and utter ignorance of raves, rave culture, and what a rave is all about. I would have thought these morons would have learned from the 60's that simply because drug abuse is a parallel activity does not mean it is exclusive to, nor necessarily inclusive with such activities.

The question nobody seems to be asking is why the fuck are these "kids" at raves? I have yet to see a rave that starts before a reasonable curfew for minors.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
What erudite criticism! (none / 0) (#172)
by revscat on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:05:52 PM EST

Such polemics I have not seen since Goethe's analysis of "The Last Supper." Why, your insightful analogies and tart summary of the issues at hand takes my breath away. "Fucking morons"! What a triumph of language! Truly, you are worthy of being a political analyst on TV, for your abilities are certainly on par with the best that that profession has to offer.

And the equivocation of popcorn with ecstacy was simply brilliant! Why, I don't think that anyone has ever made an analogy between unhealthy food and drugs before! What insight! What forthright parroting of other people's ideas!



- Rev.
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
[ Parent ]
Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by synaesthesia on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:45:13 PM EST

I think a better reductio ad absurdem would be:

Because rave promoters know that dancing causes the body temperature in a user to rise and as a result causes the user to become very thirsty, many rave promoters facilitate and profit from flagrant dancing at rave parties or events by selling over-priced bottles of water and charging entrance fees to `chill-rooms' where users can cool down.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]

As for Leahy... (none / 0) (#307)
by artsygeek on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:24:27 PM EST

As for Leahy, I just don't think he's as into this as you'd think...he's probably trying to keep from being thought of as "Soft on crime" and a "LIBERAL" (even though he is, he's probably just afraid of being branded as such, even though in VT, that'd probably get you the majority of the vote).

Same goes for Durbin to some degree.

As for Grassley and Hatch, they're major mavens of anti-(illegal) drug legislation. Hatch is Mr Pharmaceuticals when it comes to legal drugs. Grassley's WAY out there in the drug area, he makes Bill Buckley look like Al Sharpton when it comes to drugs.

[ Parent ]

Its crap like this (2.50 / 4) (#77)
by X3nocide on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:39:55 AM EST

That gives lawmakers leverage to institute legal defense laws and restrictions. A careful reading of this document clearly indicates that section 2 is congresses' findings, and that the opening paragraph is misleading. I would argue intentionally misleading. I would, however, imagine this law is unnessecary, and that the current laws are plenty enough to book organizers attempting to profit from the sale of illegal drugs. Not that this law changes much. All it does is broaden the scope of people who are "knowlingly" engaging in assisting the use of illegal drugs. One quite simple way to dodge proscecution under this law would be a discernable lack of drug usage. Good luck on getting a steady DJ job at a place like that though; I'm sure they're entirely rare. As long as raves are associated with drugs like-minded people will use these events as marketplaces, and without that traffic I don't think there's enough to support roaming oraginized raves. If I thought it mattered in the slightest, I'd ask my rep. to vote yes. I've met far too many dealers passing off DXM as MDMA to be happy with the situation. So instead I'll simply suggest that the author learn to be rather careful about their business dealings.

pwnguin.net
D'oh. (none / 0) (#80)
by X3nocide on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:42:52 AM EST

For some unexplained reason the formatting had been changed from auto format, hence the unsavory form of my comment. Please refer to another comment of mine if you find this uncomprehensible. Hopefully a gracious editor will fix the problem, if they still do that as per the FAQ.

pwnguin.net
[ Parent ]
Findings can be dangerous... (4.00 / 1) (#82)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:50:17 AM EST

If you owned a nightclub, and your state's "Demand Reduction Coordinator" (See Section 7 of the act) approached you, and said that one of your clients had an electronic music night that was in violation of the RAVE Act, and then sent you a copy of congresses findings (Section 2), wouldn't that be sufficient intimidation to drop the electronic music night, and find some other type of music to fill its place?

It would take quite a brave club owner to stand up to a federal drug officer, especially when they personally could face > $1,000,000 in fines, and 20 years in jail.

When you look at individual states which have passed similar laws, intimidation is usually sufficient to scare owners of venues from renting out their spaces to raves. And the findings certainly make very good tools for intimidation.

[ Parent ]

Its crap like this (4.14 / 7) (#78)
by X3nocide on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:40:12 AM EST

That gives lawmakers leverage to institute legal defense laws and restrictions. A careful reading of this document clearly indicates that section 2 is congresses' findings, and that the opening paragraph is misleading. I would argue intentionally misleading. I would, however, imagine this law is unnessecary, and that the current laws are plenty enough to book organizers attempting to profit from the sale of illegal drugs. Not that this law changes much. All it does is broaden the scope of people who are "knowlingly" engaging in assisting the use of illegal drugs.

One quite simple way to dodge proscecution under this law would be a discernable lack of drug usage. Good luck on getting a steady DJ job at a place like that though; I'm sure they're entirely rare. As long as raves are associated with drugs like-minded people will use these events as marketplaces, and without that traffic I don't think there's enough to support roaming oraginized raves.

If I thought it mattered in the slightest, I'd ask my rep. to vote yes. I've met far too many dealers passing off DXM as MDMA to be happy with the situation. So instead I'll simply suggest that the author learn to be rather careful about their business dealings.

pwnguin.net

Findings can be dangerous... (none / 0) (#83)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:53:01 AM EST

If you owned a nightclub, and your state's "Demand Reduction Coordinator" (See Section 7 of the act) approached you, and said that one of your clients had an electronic music night that was in violation of the RAVE Act, and then sent you a copy of congress's findings (Section 2), wouldn't that be sufficient intimidation to drop the electronic music night, and find some other type of music to fill its place?

It would take quite a brave club owner to stand up to a federal drug officer, especially when they personally could face > $1,000,000 in fines, and 20 years in jail.

When you look at individual states which have passed similar laws, intimidation is usually sufficient to scare owners of venues from renting out their spaces to raves. And the findings certainly make very good tools for intimidation.

(This was reposted, since you indicated that this message had your intended formatting)

[ Parent ]

If I were a club owner (none / 0) (#87)
by X3nocide on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:14:23 AM EST

I'd allready know about the typical rave crowd and assume the Cordinator was telegraphing legal action. Especially since I was informed the group had indeed violated the law. After the agent leaves, I'd have a surprise frank talk with the organizers. We'd probably talk about the specifics, given that someone was knowingly involved with X. Afterwards, I'd probably be unconvinced that the proper amends were going to be made, so I'll give the Cordinator a call back, and offer help. I'd be game to set up some stings to nail bribed security guards, who will be useful in apprehending dealers. Meanwhile I'll take a look at other business opportunities, and be real careful about the kind of people running the events.

The bottom line is that you have to acknowledge drug trafficing. Be knowing about the drug dealing. I'm not about to risk the other 6 days because some goofballs have been conniving to deal X to zero affect teens. I probably would drop the group, but there would be good (and bad)reasons to maintain the genre. You allready have an audience expecting a music style, you won't do many favors when they show up to the new Line Dancing night.

pwnguin.net
[ Parent ]

Where is freedom? (4.33 / 12) (#89)
by keenan on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:22:30 AM EST

I want to be able to listen to whatever music I want to when I want to and with the people I want to (regardless of how many people there are with me).  I want to be given full responsibilty of my own body -- I just want to be able do whichever drugs I feel like it -- not simply the ones that have been arbitrarily legalized.  I want to legally be able to die at my own behest.  I want there to be a way that I can legally copy music so I can play it on any device I own.  I want to be able to reverse-engineer hardware without having to fear a lawsuit.  I want to be able to talk to whomever I see fit about anything under the sun.  I want to live somewhere where I don't have to fear being imprisoned on a whim without a trial of my peers.  I want to be able to love and marry whomever I please.  

Really, is this too much to ask?

Keenan

You can have anything you want. (1.00 / 1) (#175)
by vectro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:12:17 PM EST

You just can't have everything you want.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
Contracted to one sentence: (5.00 / 3) (#194)
by Rk on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:22:29 PM EST

I want the right to do whatever I like unless it harms somebody else.

Fair enough? What a shame that lawmakers don't see it like that...

[ Parent ]

HERE HERE!! (none / 0) (#319)
by McDick on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 03:57:12 PM EST

For I am a free thinking, responsibility taking, no blame shifting, human being.

"When in the course of of human events it becomes neccessary for one people to disolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the suparate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (or evolution) with certain unalinable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers insuch form, as to them shall seem morst likely to effect their saftey and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictact that grovernments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATION, PURSUING INVARIABLY THE SAME OBJECT EVINCES A DESIGN TO REDUCE THEM UNDER ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND TO PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY."

Thank you Jefferson!

McD



McDick Technologist
[ Parent ]
IMHO (3.90 / 10) (#90)
by axxeman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:28:57 AM EST

Anyone buying pills AT an event is a bit of an idiot. You're paying higher amounts to total strangers for untested and in that environment untestable wares.

Get your drugs before, it will be cheaper AND safer.

Feminism is an overcompensatory drama-queen club, with extra dykes. ---- Farq

In the Netherlands... (4.00 / 5) (#110)
by jacoplane on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:07:13 AM EST

Here in the Netherlands it used to be tolerated (not legal) that E could be tested for safety in clubs. The incoming government though has stated that this policy must end.

[ Parent ]
Quite frankly (1.93 / 15) (#113)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:34:19 AM EST

I think anyone buying pills at all is an idiot.

[ Parent ]
Thanks, you two (1.27 / 11) (#126)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:25:52 AM EST

Thanks again, infinitera and apocryphile, for proving who the K5 cabal really is.


[ Parent ]
don't jump to conclusions (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by gibichung on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:39:36 AM EST

It's entirely possible that they intended to rate you Number One. Such users should consult the FAQ to modify their behavior. I believe a relevant passage is:
Rating purely on the basis of emotional agreement without actual knowledge on the subject or rational/logical disagreement is considered bad style by many users.
Erm, wait, that's not it. Here goes:
Which of these attributes you find more important in determining a high or low rating from 1-5 is completely subject of your discretion. Low ratings (1-2) are generally intended for posts of lower to average quality
Actually, I believe that this is the fault of the author of the FAQ, who doesn't clearly state whether a 5 is a high or low rating.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]
Look both ways, then walk to conclusions (5.00 / 1) (#242)
by Mantikor on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:37:49 PM EST

Which of these attributes you find more important in determining a high or low rating from 1-5 is completely subject of your discretion. Low ratings (1-2) are generally intended for posts of lower to average quality

Actually, I believe that this is the fault of the author of the FAQ, who doesn't clearly state whether a 5 is a high or low rating.

Having multiple sets of low ratings would be a bit redundant, right?

[ Parent ]
heh (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by infinitera on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:02:05 PM EST

See, if it was cabalistic action, that pills=dumb comment would've been hidden. It wasn't. It was just rated lowly because it backs up nothing, and states nothing interesting, promotes no further discussion. Your new rant about the cabal I guess, pisses some people off. You'll note that I haven't touched that comment, and don't intend to with any ratings (because I'm replying, mostly).

[ Parent ]
Not idiots (3.33 / 3) (#177)
by Stereo on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:38:03 PM EST

You're just another brainwashed victim of the war on drugs. Drugs are often a problem that needs help, never a sin that requires punishment. Drug users are not idiots.


kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


[ Parent ]
Opinion expressed (3.00 / 2) (#186)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:27:32 PM EST

If, personally, you need to purchase external devices to reach a "self-satisfying" high, which could otherwise be reached by just digging into your soul, then yes, you're an idiot.  It's an opinion.  Live with it.

[ Parent ]
What, are all you people brainwashed? (3.00 / 2) (#187)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:33:30 PM EST

This is freaking amazing.  I get commented on that "idiots take drugs" is a natural brainwashed continuation on the government's failed "drug war".  Everybody on K5 takes a similar tact, brainwashing themselves and falling into a shared collective opinion, but against the argument.  Don't you people realize you're doing the same thing, only in reverse?

It's my opinion.  My opinion is that drugs do not add anything to our conscious or subconscious, and all drug users are doing (those that aren't taking drugs simply to escape reality) are peeling back layers that could be peeled back through other means -- safer, deeper, and using tools built within.  

Personally, through my writing, I reach a "high" that no drug dealer could offer $5 a pill for.  Further, I can keep this high whenever I want, turn it on and off at a whim, and leave it to my children if I feel like it.  Other "artists" (like the ones mentioned by another commenter on a web page) can do the same thing.  All drug users, in my mind, are showing their weakness in not being able to reach this state on their own.

[ Parent ]

Moderation (5.00 / 1) (#197)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:34:36 PM EST

Everybody on K5 takes a similar tact, brainwashing themselves and falling into a shared collective opinion, but against the argument. Don't you people realize you're doing the same thing, only in reverse?

For the record, I gave you a 5.

My opinion is that drugs do not add anything to our conscious or subconscious, and all drug users are doing (those that aren't taking drugs simply to escape reality) are peeling back layers that could be peeled back through other means -- safer, deeper, and using tools built within.

I used to think the same way, but I've seen first hand drug experiences which have changed people's lives for the better. And that's just illegal drugs. I've seen other people whose lives were changed by prescription drugs. And I don't mean that they became reliant on them, I mean that they were able to understand what it was like to feel a certain way, and that that was enough to enable them to repeat it without any chemical help. I wonder, are you opposed to all drugs, or only illegal ones? Do you believe in tylenol? Caffeine? Alcohol? Jogging?

My current view is that most drug users I know tend to abuse drugs, but that doesn't mean that the drugs themselves are necessarily evil.

All drug users, in my mind, are showing their weakness in not being able to reach this state on their own.

Are you really reaching your state on your own? Are you not using computers and pencils and paper and the education system? Personally I don't believe in knocking the experience of anything I haven't actually tried. And even then...



[ Parent ]
Computers, perhaps, but pencils? (none / 0) (#211)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:13:45 PM EST

"Are you really reaching your state on your own? Are you not using computers and pencils and paper and the education system?"

I think there's a practical difference, though, in what gets you addicted.  People get "addicted" to drugs (or even talking on the net), but I find little addiction involved with chewing on a pencil for a few hours, while engrossed in thoughts.  There is a practical distinction between being able to curve a chemical high and putting down a pencil.

[ Parent ]

Addiction (5.00 / 2) (#215)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:22:12 PM EST

People get "addicted" to drugs

Not all drugs, and not after moderate use for many drugs. Addiction is wrong. Drugs are not (necessarily).

There is a practical distinction between being able to curve a chemical high and putting down a pencil.

Depends on the drug, the user, and the amount of usage. Studies have shown that MDMA, for instance, is not physically addictive. Which is not to say that there are not people who are addicted to MDMA. But there are likewise people who are addicted to writing.



[ Parent ]
You're not looking deep enough (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:47:00 PM EST

My opinion is that drugs do not add anything to our conscious or subconscious, and all drug users are doing (those that aren't taking drugs simply to escape reality) are peeling back layers that could be peeled back through other means -- safer, deeper, and using tools built within.

But you see, that's not an informed opinion, is it? Seeing as you haven't taken the drugs, you can't really know, can you? Now, I'll back you up a bit by saying that there are drug free ways to achieve the same sort of thing, although they can take longer. But if you think they are safer, I wouldn't be so sure about that. People can be addicted to meditative states as easily as they can drug states. People can mistake the high they get through anything as a worthy destination in and of itself. There are monks who have done little but stay in their rooms and contemplated things and never acheived anything of note; it's a vice as much as it is a virtue and can lead to spiritual sterility.

Now that being said, one thing that strong drugs can do is loose your hold on reality for a little while. They can make you doubt that what you've perceived all of your life is correct and that the world is as we believe it to be. Is that useful? To some, it is. To others, perhaps not. (Judging from what you've written in the past, I doubt that you would find it useful or safe.) Drugs such as LSD have a lot more to do with breaking up patterns of thought and perception than they do acheiving a "high".

Personally, through my writing, I reach a "high" that no drug dealer could offer $5 a pill for. Further, I can keep this high whenever I want, turn it on and off at a whim, and leave it to my children if I feel like it. Other "artists" (like the ones mentioned by another commenter on a web page) can do the same thing.

No. Actually, they can't. They can't turn it on or off at will and it's not always a high - sometimes creating with a pen and paper or whatever you use can be a stone bad trip in which your ideas, your worth as a human being, and the worth of the world and humanity all come into doubt. And if that's never happened to you, I would say you're not digging deep enough. And I'm not talking about writer's block here or frustration at not being able to say what you wanted to say - I'm talking about finding out things about yourself that you didn't know and didn't want to know.

That's right. Writing can be as bad for your mental health as drugs. It can be as dangerous as drugs. People have killed themselves over the things their writing made them face. Don't think so? Look at the lives of some writers and then think again. As for me, I don't write a great deal these days, as it's very hard for me to write and think about the things I want to think about and lead a normal, productive life. Right now I fear the next project I'd like to write more than someone dosing me with LSD - I KNOW I could handle being dosed.

You really should find a safer way to get a drug free high than writing. Trust me.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Using practicality (3.50 / 2) (#214)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:19:34 PM EST

Very abstract thinking.  But tell me, are there any studies of writers who couldn't put their pencils down?  A physical or mental dependence on the graphite in the pencil?  If you were to put a hundred drug addicts in one room, and a hundred writing addicts in another, with drugs and pencils in each respective room, which room do you think would empty quicker?  Who would have the stronger addiction?

Like I said before, there have been studies of this stuff, and that's what I rely on.  I spent many, many years avoiding alcohol, and when I finally tried it, my opinion was it added nothing to my experience and enjoyment, and if nothing else seemed to fuck up my body royally (I still don't see how people could equate "vomit" with "good time").  Even in the early stages of the night, when I just had a buzz, I realized it was no better than when I sit myself down and get into a transient state with a notebook and pen.  And that, I know, I can pick up and walk away from when I have to (I did so in college, and at lunch times in the park).  I could shake off the alcohol if I tried, and I doubt I could do the same with drugs.

I still think it's a "weakness", no matter what anyone says.  And the weakness isn't that they're "doing something against the law", but that they rely on that crutch.

[ Parent ]

It exists (5.00 / 1) (#220)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:44:15 PM EST

Very abstract thinking. But tell me, are there any studies of writers who couldn't put their pencils down?

Do a web search for compulsive writing or hypergraphia. There are those who say that a form of temporal lobe epilepsy can produce this and that the prophet Ezekiel and Vincent Van Gogh may have had this. It can also show up as an obsession in OCD, or as a specialized interest in Asperger's Syndrome. Not to mention it could be a symptom of Manic/Depressive illness, which creative people have been shown to be prone to.

I'm not saying that every or even most prolific writers suffer from any of these, but it is known to happen.

Of course, we could just stick with the ancient theory that the Muse inspires the writer. Trust me, she's not often nice about it. And sometimes, she just won't shut up until you write what she wants you to ..

The prime example of someone who couldn't stop writing was Isaac Asimov. I don't think he had any condition, he just liked to do it and worked constantly. Phillip K Dick seemed pretty compulsive about it.

And the weakness isn't that they're "doing something against the law", but that they rely on that crutch.

Just about everyone has a crutch they rely on.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Natural highs. (none / 0) (#236)
by haflinger on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:08:51 PM EST

We have something in common, besides being writers (I'll make the bold assumption that you're more prolific than I am, but it's something that I do sometimes.)
I reach a "high" that no drug dealer could offer $5 a pill for.
I, too, can reach such a high, at least assuming we're speaking strictly physical stuff. There are several different methods, but most of them are natural, assuming of course that my metabolic rate is in itself natural, a supposition which I usually hold to.
  • Sleep deprivation. If I don't sleep for at least two-three hours a night for a month or more, I start to hallucinate, and I also feel really good absolutely all the time, at least until I keel over and collapse.
  • Sex. Ooh. :)
  • Really, really good music. Sometimes I just feel lifted by it.
  • Then, we get the artificially-induced methods.
  • Red Dye #5. This chemical is legal in the US, but not in several other countries. In most people it just causes cancer, which is why the DEA doesn't ban it. It also has an unusual effect on the metabolic rate of a small minority of hyperactive people. I am in this minority. It roughly multiplies my metabolic rate by four or five times, and it's already pretty high. God, it's fun.
  • Alcohol. I suppose I have a pretty normal reaction to beer, although my tolerance for it is low, but my tolerance for hard liquour, especially whisky, is actually rather high. I find I can enter a trance-like state with some really good bourbon.
  • Codeine. I've only ever taken it three times I think total, and always under prescription. This is the one that's most like one of the natural highs: it's like having an orgasm for half an hour, for me anyway. Apparently women never have this reaction, but in guys it seems to be pretty common, at least IME. Anyway, codeine makes me really happy for several days but not very useful.
Perhaps you have noticed a pattern. Of the artificial means of enjoyment, the only one that drug dealers deal with is also the one that most closely resembles a natural high in terms of its experience. I think that's strange, but interesting. From what I know, the opiates in general, which are all very popular on the street, all produce a similar experience to sex.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Quite frankly (none / 0) (#282)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:39:56 AM EST

I think anyone buying pills is smarter than the guy who claims that "anyone buying pills at all is an idiot". this however, does not say much.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Rat Poison anyone? (4.00 / 2) (#149)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:14:27 PM EST

You're paying higher amounts to total strangers for untested and in that environment untestable wares.

IOW, it's kind of like buying cigarettes.



[ Parent ]
Blame video games... (4.40 / 15) (#91)
by cei on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:48:36 AM EST

"If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music." -- source unknown.

Or cocacola \nt (none / 0) (#95)
by noogie on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:04:15 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
Or cocacola \nt (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by noogie on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:04:34 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
quote source (none / 0) (#120)
by Brett Viren on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:52:55 AM EST

I have seen this quote a lot. The best I was able to trace it was to around Dec 15, 2000. All references point to a "quote of the day" on k10k.net, but I am unable to find it on that site. The most lucid reference I found is here.

And, yes, it is a slow Sunday.

[ Parent ]

Huh (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by thebabelfish on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:49:06 PM EST

Most of the times I've seen it it's been attributed to "Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989". I've always assumed that was right (it sure sounds right), but doing a quick Google search turns up this interesting page which says:
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

-- Marcus Brigstocke, British Comedian
"It is my Joke. I wrote it, then I took the rest of the day off as I was so chuffed with it."
-- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 (apocryphal)
-- Karen Price, Nintendo Representative (apocryphal)
-- k10k (?)


[Erowid note: This quote has been distributed with a variety of attributions. A visitor recently (April 11, 2002) wrote to us about Marcus Brigstocke's claim to being the originating author. The attributions to Nintendo Employees and others are most likely apocryphal. If anyone knows of any other claims of authorship or knows of any documentation of any performances or publication of the joke, including location, date, etc please let us know at corrections@erowid.org.]


"I don't trust goats," --To Catch a Spy
[ Parent ]
The source (none / 0) (#158)
by xee on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:19:16 PM EST

That was said by a VP of Marketing at Nintendo in the early eighties. I dont remember exactly when it was said or who said it but i'm pretty sure it was a woman.


Proud to be a member.
[ Parent ]
Remarks (1.88 / 17) (#94)
by qpt on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:08:31 AM EST

Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,
Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat
That we must change for Heav'n, this mournful gloom
For that celestial light? Be it so, since he
Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid
What shall be right: fardest from him is best
Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream
Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail
Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings
A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.

is this a parody... (3.71 / 7) (#99)
by flinkflonk on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:52:06 AM EST

... of the anti-terrorist laws you have over there? The ones where all bearded men are by definition suspicious of terrorist actions and therefore can be incarcerated without any other reason?
Seriously, if this is for real, it's another huge bite out of human rights (what, you're not even supposed to listen to certain kinds of music? Not even mentioning religious or political beliefs) and you guys (USAnians) have bigger problems than you think yourself.
And that's not even taking into account the misguided war on drugs effort, which has only lead to more drugs being trafficed instead of less. Not to mention the connection between the music and drugs - so I'm not allowed to have some trance playing as a background noise at work - to deafen out the CPU fans and harddisks, what are you thinking!?! :)
Stupid.

--
Verb is a noun, which simply isn't fair. Fair is a noun or an adjective. Adjective is a noun, but can also be an adjective, as can most English nouns. Go figure, which is both a noun and a verb and good advice.
Ecstasy (3.72 / 11) (#100)
by dark on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:24:21 AM EST

Excessive and overmastering joy or enthusiasm; rapture; enthusiastic delight.
What a good thing that the government is here to protect you from that.



Alcohol-free? (4.00 / 7) (#101)
by sk0tadi on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:25:06 AM EST

I've never been to *any* event (in 10 years of
clubbing) where alcohol wasn't being served - whether it was a
Goth, Industrial, or Rock event (no, they aren't raves,
but there's plenty of loud, pounding music).
 I can only remember a single venue that didn't have a bar - it was
a BYOB (bring your own beer) event.

In fact, I've never heard of a rave (and
have known several ravers/gravers) that
didn't have alcohol, either - even if they weren't for profit.

What part of the US are these people targeting -
and what age group? How many people over 21
do you know that would *go* to an event
without alcohol being served? I probably
wouldn't, and I only drink Shirley Temples.

While I don't agree with this law, it doesn't
seem as dangerous as it's made out to be here.

Oh, and ecstacy and friends are hardly just
"club/rave drugs" any more. I've known plenty
of bar-only people who've popped tabs before
their night of relaxing drinks - no pulsing
music required.

These people need to stop passing silly laws
like this and take some drugs instead - they might
feel better.

(I say this as someone who has never done
any drugs at all, doesn't drink anything other than Shirley Temples (really), doesn't know any straight edge people other than himself, and supports full legalization of basically all drugs)


Oh and (none / 0) (#103)
by sk0tadi on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:47:04 AM EST

this includes EBM/electro, dark/coldwave, synthpop, and even 80s events - you can trip just easily to Information Society as you can to old Moby.


[ Parent ]
raves & alcohol (none / 0) (#202)
by Cuthalion on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:47:41 PM EST

I used to do live visuals for raves back in Minnesota some years back, and the only alcohol I ever saw was a few bottles of Corona the promoters bought for the DJ's. No alcohol was sold (as the event was trying to be legal, and a) licensing for that is a pain, and b) I don't think they wanted to exclude minors), and for the larger events, everyone was searched at the door and prevented from bringing in their own.

(I say this as someone who has never done any drugs at all, doesn't drink anything other than Shirley Temples (really), doesn't know any straight edge people other than himself, and supports full legalization of basically all drugs)

Heh. I'm basically in the same boat as you.

[ Parent ]
Rescent history... (none / 0) (#255)
by cgenman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:58:35 PM EST

At the risk of providing too much information...  

Beach rave last month-no alcohol except for the two guys who brought miller.  About 1,000 in attendance.  

Two months ago... Rave at a converted movie theartre in Providence, RI.  Gatorade, water, and candy were the only concessions available.  Oh yes, and CD's.  2,000 ish people.

Three months ago, rave with a happy local group.  Lots of water and fruit for free, no alcohol.

and so on.  This isn't to say that it never happens:  there was a series of good raves thrown at a bowling alley in north LA that had a fully stocked bar, but that is by far the exception rather than the rule.

Clubs- yes, clubs have alcohol.  That's not a rave, and the vibe is totally different.  Why not go to ravelinks.com, find an event near you, and see the scene for yourself?  I promise nobody will push any pills down your throat :).

-me

mmm... Shirley Temples are yummy.
- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

Laugh (none / 0) (#288)
by sk0tadi on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 06:03:52 AM EST

1. I don't like events that crowded. I think
that's insane.

2. Pushing pills down my throat? Chuckle. No
one has tried to get me to do drugs since I was
17.

Some piece of data missing here. I've been
to a few raves. It's not even remotely my
thing. I'm a dark alternative club monkey.

Anyhow, my point was that this article
seemed to imply that your standard pulsing-music
dance club was also in danger
- I'm arguing that
those events don't seem to be the target
of this act - so me and my clubwhoring
kin should not be affected. Hence, this
is not as broad or scary as the author makes
it out to be.

[ Parent ]

E overdoses? (3.20 / 5) (#109)
by toddg on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:39:39 AM EST

The fantastically stupid bill (you can tell Hatch had a big share of authorship) has the following section in 'Findings':
(10) An Ecstasy overdose is characterized by an increased heart rate, hypertension, renal failure, visual hallucinations, and overheating of the body (some Ecstasy deaths have occurred after the core body temperature of the user goes as high as 110 degrees, causing all major organ systems to shutdown and muscles to breakdown), and may cause heart attacks, strokes, and seizures.
Has anyone ever seen evidence of this before? I've never even *heard* of an E overdose. Not that this will bother Congress; they have a habit of redefining medicine and science by fiat - we proclaim it, thus it is so. Anyway, can anyone comment on E overdoses?

Are you just saying that because you heard... (4.00 / 3) (#119)
by Sesquipundalian on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:51:54 AM EST

marijuana advocates talking like that?

For marijuana to kill you, it takes about 2,000 joints, all smoked within 30 minutes. To deliver a lethal dose of TCH to someone this way is impossible (clearly it would be impossible to smoke 2,000 joints in a 30 minute period), so marijuana is a very safe drug. E doesn't have nearly the same margin for doseage error. Besides, E is too similar, chemically speaking, to too many other chemicals that can kill you. It's too easy for a screw up by your local chemist to result in permanent nervous system injuries.

Also bear in mind that bad information can kill you just as fast as bad drugs.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
webster disagrees (none / 0) (#196)
by loteck on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:32:54 PM EST

or, at least he has since 1818. look it up.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

[ Parent ]
gullible (none / 0) (#318)
by Happy Monkey on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 02:33:59 PM EST

I just looked it up. It's not there.
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]
They happen (2.50 / 2) (#124)
by Paul Hodson on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:19:01 AM EST

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link for this, but about a month and a half ago, two Ottawa, ON, CA girls died of an E overdose. There has also been a number of cases of people being sent to ER units. I'll follow up with a link if I can find one.

[ Parent ]
Find the link, please. (none / 0) (#317)
by Dragomire on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 10:33:03 AM EST

I'd really like to know if amounts of MDMA were found, or if another drug was found in their systes. There was a bunch of pills being passed around about 2 years ago that were being called E, but contained no MDMA at all, and instead contained another drug, which I can't remember the name. People were getting extremely sick off of it, and there were some deaths.

[ Parent ]
Overdose (5.00 / 5) (#127)
by Khedak on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:27:47 AM EST

(10) An Ecstasy overdose is characterized by an increased heart rate, hypertension, renal failure, visual hallucinations, and overheating of the body (some Ecstasy deaths have occurred after the core body temperature of the user goes as high as 110 degrees, causing all major organ systems to shutdown and muscles to breakdown), and may cause heart attacks, strokes, and seizures.

Ecstasy overdose is extremely rare, simply because you have to be pretty damned stupied to take an overdose. Something like people who take 10 tylenol PM and have to be taken to the hospital before their liver explodes; it happens, but it's not something common enough to warrant the drug being made illegal. Yes, there can be problems, but raves almost always have paramedics on hand, paid for by the promoters. Usually they don't have to do much, at a rave with 20,000 people, it's rare for anyone to be killed, and believe me, there are people there taking 5, 10, a few maybe as many as 20 doses of ecstasy. These people are probably doing long-term damage to their serotonin-containing cells, but there's been no evidence of behaviour changes linked to the low amounts long-term neurotoxicity. Actually, there is evidence, but the behavior change was positive (less irritability, more acceptance, calmness, even years afterwards).

As to the dangers of ecstasy, they primarily have to do with water. It becomes more difficult for your body to regulate its body temperature, and more difficult (subjectively) to tell if you're burning up. So you have some people (usually a handful a year) who don't drink any water, overheat, and die basically from overheating and dehydration of dancing in a crowd of 1000 people for 3 hours. Also, an even smaller number go the other extreme, and drink more water than they can eliminate, and die from odoema. I hear maybe three or four such cases per year. Finally, and this is rarest, it's theoretically possible to overdose just on ecstasy's effect if you have no tolerance and you use enough. It can cause a neurochemical imbalance called "Serotonin Syndrome" which can be fatal. But this is many times more rare than Reye's Syndrome in aspirin, so again, I don't see that this kind of propoganda will reduce harm.

Information like the kind quoted is not only inaccurate, lumping all Ecstasy-related injuries into "Ecstasy Overdose", but it is not useful because it fails to accurately characterise the true causes of Ecstasy-related injury (and thus help people to avoid it). All this bill will do is make raves illegal, and thus make it more difficult for the raves (or parties) that continue to provide proper security and medical support.

[ Parent ]
Harm Reduction (5.00 / 2) (#141)
by Khedak on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:58:08 AM EST

By the way, kids, do NOT take 5, 10, or 20 pills if that's not your tolerance level, unless you want to be the one with the serotonin syndrome. Large men who've been consuming ecstasy for many years might take such doses. For more information on how to use Ecstasy safely, if you're going to do so, please read up on Erowid, or Dancesafe.org.And remember, it's imporant to verify the purity of the pills you're taking, and that is at least partially possible with testing kits. Kinda like condoms: They afford some protection, but are not a panacea.

[ Parent ]
What's positive? (none / 0) (#142)
by sludge on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:01:10 PM EST

but the behavior change was positive (less irritability, more acceptance, calmness, even years afterwards).

Sounds like the kind of attitude that leads to bills like this passing. Nosir, doesn't sound positive to me.
SLUDGE
Hiring in the Vancouver, British Columbia area
[ Parent ]

Not my labeling (none / 0) (#153)
by Khedak on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:31:50 PM EST

It's not my labeling. The scientists who studied this expected to find increased irritability and less calmness, since serotonin is responsible for regulating these activities. This was termed a "negative" effect, and they noticed the actual observed effect was the opposite. This was the same study that used cerebralspinal fluid to determine that neurotoxic damage was taking place, and the studies were done to determine the behavioural effects.

[ Parent ]
irony (4.50 / 4) (#146)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:07:22 PM EST

Yes, there can be problems, but raves almost always have paramedics on hand, paid for by the promoters.

And the irony of this law is that it will give promoters incentives to not have paramedics on hand, because that's just more evidence that they knew drugs were going to be there.



[ Parent ]
IIRC (4.00 / 1) (#191)
by Dragomire on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:06:18 PM EST

The amount of E you have to take to overdose is something like over 100 pills, normally. In order to experience an actual overdose, you need to take something like 200mg of MDMA per kg of your body weight. I forget where I read the actual overdose amount, but it was also back when I did E regularly.

More often, people are dying from pills that aren't MDMA at all. They get passed off as 'Ecstacy,' but in many cases contain no MDMA within them.

In the case that the pills do contain MDMA, the main causes of death are not an overdose of the drug itself, but failure to take in enough water (dehydration, overheating), or taking in too much water (water poisoning).

[ Parent ]

There's something that disturbs me here ... (none / 0) (#206)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:54:14 PM EST

... isn't it possible that some people are much more sensitive to it to the point where they would be in danger if they took it? And of course, they're not going to know about it until they take it. It might be a rare person that has this problem, but it is a possibility.

People shouldn't be so quick to gloss over the E overdose stories. There may be cases where people have had adverse reactions to the drug itself.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
O hdear (none / 0) (#289)
by Rogerborg on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 06:48:18 AM EST

    isn't it possible that some people are much more sensitive to it to the point where they would be in danger if they took it?

Good point. While we're at it, let's round up those monsters selling the ticking time bombs known as "peanuts".


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

There is a danger.... (none / 0) (#316)
by Dragomire on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 10:29:00 AM EST

Yes. If you have any sort of heart conditions, you should never take the stuff. MDMA raises heart rate and body temerature as a result. Those people whith heart conditions would be asking for heart attacks if they took it.

Also, if you are taking any sort of perscription medicine, you should not mix MDMA with it. My brother would love to try it, but he is on Aderol, which already raises his heart rate, and he knows that it is simply a bad idea to try E.

Iroically, I've mixed E with ohter illegal drugs (pot, GHB, Ketamine, acid, cocaine, and heroin by mistake once) and suffered no ill effects from the mixing of those illegal drugs (well, the heroin and the E cancelled each other out, making me sober, but it was a tiny line of it, which I thought was morphene). I'm not advocating anyone do this, but I'm saying it is sometimes safer to mix E with other illegal drugs than perscription drugs.

[ Parent ]

Don't take my drugs away.... (1.77 / 18) (#111)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:19:26 AM EST

The bill finds that drugs and electronic music are inseperable, and that rave promoters exploit children for profit.

This is essentially a true statement.

My guess is you are less concerned about civil liberties, and more worried that your illegal drug-taking antics will be curtailed. Am I right or am I right ?

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long

Wow... (1.00 / 1) (#114)
by jesseerdmann on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:37:00 AM EST

I can't believe that you're openly flaunting that you're an adequate troll. Doesn't that make you inadequate since you're being so blatantly obvious?

[ Parent ]
Adequate troll ? What are you talking about ? (3.00 / 1) (#121)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:02:24 AM EST

I have an adequacy link, the same way many people have a goatse.cx link. Its my way of telling you to butt out of my private life. Not everyone who links to goatse.cx is an ass-expanding lunatic, likewise not everyone who links to adequacy is a troll.

In fact, most of adequacy's stuff is a lot cleverer than it appears at first sight, it really isn't all trolls all the time, there is some insightful discussion over there.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Granted (none / 0) (#296)
by jesseerdmann on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 10:36:24 AM EST

Adequacy is certainly good at offering alternate (controversal even :-) perspectives on situations. Yes, sometimes they're clever and insightful. Most of the time, though, it's not. I used to read it quite a lot, but the quality has started to suffer the last month or two and I haven't been reading it as much.

I don't think it's fair to attack the author's motives rather than the article itself. You opened yourself up for the same kind of attack, so I took it.



[ Parent ]
I percieve that adequacy is going downhill (none / 0) (#301)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:37:58 PM EST

It seems as if they are regurgitating the same old tired formulae. Misspelling linux, spelling flames, etc etc.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Both (3.50 / 2) (#143)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:03:58 PM EST

My guess is you are less concerned about civil liberties, and more worried that your illegal drug-taking antics will be curtailed.

I'm concerned that my civil liberties, in the form of my right to exercise my illegal drug-taking antics, will be curtailed.



[ Parent ]
Civil liberties (none / 0) (#184)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:06:54 PM EST

Civil liberties are only ever present in so far as they help to further the captialist agenda. The moment they become inconvenient they will be removed. In the past civil liberties were granted by a grudging power elite to stave off revolution. Now that the masses are placated with consumer goods, the powers that be can remove the civil liberties, since there will be little opposition.

Since drug taking is illegal anyway, laws against it are unlikely to stop people from doing it. After all murder is illegal, but it still goes on.

Relax. Nothing will change, the drug economy follows the eternal laws of supply and demand.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Umm ... (none / 0) (#208)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:01:44 PM EST

... you know you're going to ruin your reputation as a t***l if you keep posting uncomfortable truths such as this ...
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I am not a troll n/t (none / 0) (#294)
by Phillip Asheo on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 09:48:52 AM EST


--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

I've never been to a rave in my life! (none / 0) (#207)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:58:20 PM EST

And aren't very likely to go. It's the civil liberties aspect that concerns me. As far as the drugs go, if I wanted them, I could get them with one phone call.

By the way, it's my impression that the quality of contributions associated with your website has declined considerably. Perhaps you should reconsider your policy against trolling; it's not as if anyone at your site would be that good at it anyway and it might provide some humor. Maybe.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Oh, very insightful (none / 0) (#292)
by Rogerborg on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 07:34:21 AM EST

    My guess is you are less concerned about civil liberties, and more worried that your illegal drug-taking antics will be curtailed

Ever paused to consider that civil liberties, like rights, are what you assert, not what you are granted? That most moves towards enfranchisement in the US have come as the result of mass civil disobedience or in the context of huge social turmoil?

  • American revolution, to get the ball rolling.
  • Civil war, to get the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
  • World War I, to get the 19th Amendment.
  • Speakeasies to get the 21st Amendment and repeal the 18th.
  • Race riots in the 1950's and 1960's to force the Supreme Court to actually implement the 14th and 15th Amendments.
  • Anti Vietnam protests and draft burning in the late 60's.
  • Stonewall Bar in 1969, and the Gay Pride movement.
  • Pro-life versus pro-choice, which hasn't reached a conclusion, but both sides have achieved a number of local legislative victories.

Change comes not through asking nicely, but through saying "Screw you. We're going to do this anyway, and we don't care if it offends you. Legislate the reality, not the morality."

The only major failure in that respect has been drugs. Why? It's just a hundred years of overwhelming indoctrinated irrationality. Do you know why cocaine and opiates are illegal? It's to stop white women being drugged and fucked by devious orientals, and raped by cocaine addled niggers. Yup, it was good old racial prejudice, backed up by over a hundred years of psuedo science and hate speech, it's just that the choice of targets has changed. Now "drug apologist" is bandied as an irrational insult much as "cocaine nigger" was in 1914. And of course, the worst insults often come from people who are addicted to caffiene, nicotene and alcohol, all of which are physiologically addictive and of a toxicity comparable to cocaine, but are taken in dilute controlled doses, just as cocaine was before the Harrison Act ensured that from then on it would be abused in binges, cut with whatever old white powder happened to be handy.

<Mr Mackey> Drugs are just herbs and chemicals, m'kaaay. Addiction is baaaad. Drugs cut with random substances are baaaad, m'kay. Encouraging people to indulge in binge abuse rather than casual and moderate use is baaaad. Creating a huge economy based on stealing from productive people to pay for artificially overpriced and dangerously cut drugs is baaaaad, m'kay. </Mr Mackey>


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Does this mean (2.00 / 7) (#112)
by AnalogBoy on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:34:13 AM EST

Rap concerts are out?   I mean the booze and reefer, and ground soaked with blood, vomit, and the collective 1oz poured out for all their dead homies?

[Granted, i wish they would pass a law that says i was able to beat sensless anyone coming up the road at 2 AM demonstrating their quite annoying bass speakers.]

Seriously, how can this law be enacted?  It will be struck down by the USDOJ - it has to be.   Eventually even the conservatives [the ones bush didn't appoint] will see that our civil liberties, what few we have left, are disappearing quickly..

Who wants to move with me to Canada?
--
Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)

yeah, we have rights, or something, right (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by treat on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:42:42 AM EST

Seriously, how can this law be enacted? It will be struck down by the USDOJ - it has to be.

Even more dangerous than the idea that laws like this are a good idea, is the idea that laws like this will never pass, or be struck down by the courts (which is what I assume you mean?), or that somehow our rights will be protected by our constitution. Face it, it just doesn't work like that. Otherwise we wouldn't have a drug war in the first place. There would be no DMCA, no PATRIOT act.

[ Parent ]

The difference is... (4.00 / 1) (#135)
by AnalogBoy on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:47:50 AM EST

This one seems quite overt, and has a precedent - the anti-rock and roll thing in the 60's.   Unless they lump this under the "War on Terrorism, Subsection: Drugs", i just don't see it...
--
Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)
[ Parent ]
A non-drug rave? (3.71 / 7) (#117)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:42:49 AM EST

Out of curiousity, has anyone ever been to a rave where drugs weren't being taken?  I've never been to one, but I've always heard that drugs are nearly omnipresent (well, that and lithe girls in ab-bearing middrifs, which I probably wouldn't mind).

Good point... (4.33 / 3) (#147)
by Kinthelt on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:08:28 PM EST

...let's take it a bit further.

The War On Drugs(tm) also claims that drugs are rampant in our schools and playgrounds. Schools and playgrounds are populated mainly by children, and are thus exploiting them. I would like to make a motion to close down every school and playground across America.

[ Parent ]

That's funny (none / 0) (#188)
by Silent Chris on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:39:56 PM EST

When I went to school, there was no one doing drugs on the playground (K-8.  There was no playground as a high schooler).  Maybe it was just a consequence of where I was living (suburbia), but I didn't see this.

On the other hand, I had friends who would go to raves in college (or go to bars and get wasted), and I would see the effects of what they'd gone through when they came back.  The ravers would talk about the air through jitters (thankfully, I excused myself out of those conversations), and the drinkers would usually vomit on my rug.

While it is possible, I don't think I would've entirely missed a stoned 5th grader.  On the other hand, the people I knew in college would deliberately go to bars and raves just to get drunk and high, like that was the only recourse for going.  Most of us went to school because we had/were forced to, not because there were "drugs on the playground".

In other words, you have a situation where there aren't supposed to be drugs, and there are; and a situation where (from conversations, and what I've read) there are supposed to be drugs, and there are.  See the difference?  Do you really think the police would bust up a "no substances" party at a school (like they had at one of the colleges I attended?)  Nah, they'll go after the one with the reputation that, through better or for worse, apparently got deserved.

[ Parent ]

the logic is the same (none / 0) (#279)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:22:54 AM EST

when there is an awareness that a product is sold somewhere, there will be people there to want to buy it. if there is an awareness that people who want to buy something will be somewhere, people who sell that something will want to be there as well.
I knew of people, who would go to school, just to buy drugs...because they knew that drug dealers were at school. yes there were others who were forced to come (much like sexually deprived induviduals going to a rave, because they have little other choice)...and others still who went because they liked school (" rave)...
i'd say the people who went to the above two mentioned places for drugs were not only of around the same in number and percentage...but were also more or less THE SAME PEOPLE :D
(this goes for dealers too y0.)


my highschool had it's few people, who you would go to, if you needed to be fixed up with something. we all knew who they were. they (the dealers) werent stoned, usually, either...and there was little that the school board could do to cut these dealings unless they went very open with them.
my elementary school was a particularily bad one, and my highschool wasnt *much* better(does anyone else in canada remember that thing that passed on ctv about that girl getting stabbed?[YES it played on ctv...they are obviously too lame to play anything WORTH WATCHING so they must play something...!])...and oddly my elementary school was the one in the burbs, while the highschool was smack dab in the middle of the deteriorating central city core.

you just lucked out.


"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
x0r! (none / 0) (#281)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:23:35 AM EST


"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
the logic is the same (none / 0) (#280)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:23:12 AM EST

when there is an awareness that a product is sold somewhere, there will be people there to want to buy it. if there is an awareness that people who want to buy something will be somewhere, people who sell that something will want to be there as well.
I knew of people, who would go to school, just to buy drugs...because they knew that drug dealers were at school. yes there were others who were forced to come (much like sexually deprived induviduals going to a rave, because they have little other choice)...and others still who went because they liked school (" rave)...
i'd say the people who went to the above two mentioned places for drugs were not only of around the same in number and percentage...but were also more or less THE SAME PEOPLE :D
(this goes for dealers too y0.)


my highschool had it's few people, who you would go to, if you needed to be fixed up with something. we all knew who they were. they (the dealers) werent stoned, usually, either...and there was little that the school board could do to cut these dealings unless they went very open with them.
my elementary school was a particularily bad one, and my highschool wasnt *much* better(does anyone else in canada remember that thing that passed on ctv about that girl getting stabbed?[YES it played on ctv...they are obviously too lame to play anything WORTH WATCHING so they must play something...!])...and oddly my elementary school was the one in the burbs, while the highschool was smack dab in the middle of the deteriorating central city core.

you just lucked out.


"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
actually i have (none / 0) (#278)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:12:43 AM EST

i was at a rave...i think you should be able to call it a rave...i have yet to attend a second rave so i have nothing to compare it to...

i was at penhold air cadet summer training center. i think it was two years ago, although it could have been last year...around this time...(those of you who are paying attention may notice, that right now...there is another group of people in my position in penhold, they may even be holding a similar rave this summer)
I was basically a socially excluded person...afraid of everyone, and everyone was afraid of me...and a large majority of the people on base hated me and a few wanted to either kill / get me fired / otherwise harm me. I was on a day off. also i was mostly unwillingly being held on this pseudomilitary base, being held by the chains of ecconomics, and was more or less unhappy about the whole thing...yes...i was a Staff Cadet...Assistant Public Affairs O at that...(amongst other things...). anyways
The night of the rave, a group of local teens, were threatening to basically gang up as a group and start kicking-ass...whether the victim involved was a 12 year old girl...or a 18 year old staff cadet...so as the military 'we are all part of a whole' mindset went, everyone (all the staff cadets, that is) grouped together in one large gang and set out for this other non-millitary-based gang.
I was on my day off.

they claimed the first place these teens would come, would be the rave(being loud and obvious in easy in he praries to find...)
i figured i could use a good fight, mabye i could release some pent up aggression and anger while getting some excersize and putting some lifeless albertan out of their misery...should of course, they attack me. but i didnt expect such a thing to occur...and so i went to the rave. i was there while the DJ was setting up, as were some 50 ish other people...including staff Cadets and Adult Staff.
word that these teens were out and about spread, and the Adult Staff began stalking the base commando style....and the teens grouped into their unit and departed. i think the DJ got scared away, during the whole ordeal.

the music started, the lights were swirling and pulsing...and it was great. i myself, being an antisocial, never really did learn to dance (the few dances i've went to i've mostly sat along the wall and done all i could not to cry(woo heartbreak (/sarcasm)), or stood at attention(woo cadet dances (/sarcasm))...
but i had the ENTIRE BUILDING to myself, there wasnt a person anywhere nearby...

so i kind of make did with what i had and eventually found myself doing movements that i felt like doing to the rhtyms...and this felt like i was around a fire in an ancient tribal circle...mabye even some sort of saskatchewan born new twist on ancient dances the creator has passed on to the original peoples of this land... or their lands in the alberta area...

in any way it was something sacred.

and as the only person at this rave, and under contract from the military explicitly stating that i could not do drugs...i did not have any drugs...which means there were no drugs at this rave...it was a Non Drug rave.
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Hmmm.. (none / 0) (#297)
by kcidx on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 10:38:18 AM EST

Well...I have been to a rave and not done drugs....but, since I am not an SS troop of the federal gov't, I didn't go around and check everyone else. I didn't seem to be an incredibly drugged out party, as some of them get...and you can feel it when they are..

I had a great time without drugs. I've also had a great time while using them.

But I think the question is a little off base. Generally, PEOPLE bring drugs into the party. Very rarely have I found a party where the drugs are provided by the promoter and just dished out on your way in...as the question implies.

I mean, have you ever been to a drug free rock concert?

[ Parent ]

UK already has a similar law (4.16 / 6) (#122)
by salsaman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:07:16 AM EST

A remarkably similar law was passed 8 years ago in the UK, despite massive public demonstrations.

To be fair ... (4.00 / 1) (#134)
by Simon Kinahan on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:46:46 AM EST

... although the 1994 CJ Act sections concering raves are a truly appalling example of bad, populist legislation, directed at pleasing the Daily Mail set rather than solving a real problem, it is more specific than this proposed American legislation.

IIRC the goal wasn't to do with drugs, but rather to prevent trespass and public nuisance. Since those are illegal anyway, of course, the legislation was stupid and unnecessary.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]

Maybe not (4.50 / 2) (#155)
by Simon Kinahan on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:34:32 PM EST

In the light of having had the misleading nature of this write-up pointed out to be, I retract my unfavourable comparison between it and the 1994 CJA.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
It's about time (2.46 / 13) (#125)
by ennui on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:23:38 AM EST

If legislation like this will reduce the concentrations of "plurry" emasculated nancyboys who jump around like jackasses wearing crap that glows in the dark and pacifiers and stupid-looking hats and fruity backpacks and makeup, overweight middle-aged pedophile freaks who pretend they like that noise and dress like the plurry nancyboys to ogle teenage girls in kerchief tops, and girls who act sluttier than a starving hooker but are ostensibly virgins who are "just friends" with "boys" then make it so.

If the logical conclusion of civil liberties is the rave, then civil liberties be damned. Sometimes, it's time to strap on the jackboots and march down the street to the Horst Wessel and fix things. As W. C. Fields said when he found out Federal law mandated bars be closed on Election Day, "That's taking democracy too far!"

"You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." -- Al Capone

troll alert (4.00 / 3) (#138)
by senjiro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:52:41 AM EST

Listen pal, you have a right to call names, not like the music, despise the scene, and imagine that ravers are all drugged to the eyes.
We, however, have a right to be called your asinine names, love the music, indulge in the scene, and if we choose, be drugged to the eyes.

i'll refrain from playing pop-psychology with you and leave it at being a troll. Too bad you've never been there.


it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
I'm not your pal (2.00 / 1) (#166)
by ennui on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:26:20 PM EST

The objection I have has nothing to do with drugs. It's the entirely elusory mystique of "peace, love, unity, and respect" that appears to be how ravers justify their idiotic behavior. It's just a tired, hypercommercialized retread of the faux-punk of the 70's and 80's and the so-called acid culture of the 60's. The lofty ideals have little or nothing to do with everybody dressing like mental patients would if set loose in a novelty shop.

The incredible thing about it is that the culture persists in lining the pockets of promoters who clearly don't have the best interests of "ravers" at heart. If there was really a market for non-alcoholic nightclubs, they wouldn't be throwing these "events" in the middle of vacant lots and abandoned warehouses that quickly become petri dishes for this culture of sexual assaults, drug overdoses, and idiotic behavior.

"You can get a lot more done with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone." -- Al Capone
[ Parent ]

That will never work. (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by Gris Grue on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:02:37 PM EST

The insightful suggestion that someone's emotional attachment and feelings of belonging to a targeted consumer group are the result of its being cleverly marketed as a transgressive "community outside commerce" will get you nothing but enraged denial--manifested here as low ratings (and enraged denial).

ref. Freud, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, and the first two Gang of Four albums (esp. "In The Ditch" and "At Home He's a Tourist")

Wanna buy a k5 t-shirt?


If a bad zombie gets you, he will weep on you, or take away your whiskey, or hurt your daughter's bones.
[ Parent ]

Sigh. (none / 0) (#309)
by jonny 290 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 09:37:43 PM EST

Fine. Then you have little to no problem with a large percentage of events going on. Because most events thrown today are under the creed of "we like the music."

I'm sorry, but you can't attack PLUR as an excuse to do drugs because few people STILL PREACH PLUR.

My promotion company, Dancenhance, does not print "PLUR" on our flyers. We actively throw out drug users at our events, and take pictures of them in the depths of their roll to put on our "Hall Of Shame", and we refuse them entry at the next event. Our creed is not "PLUR", but "Brick To The Face"(of drug users). Seriously.

The tired excuse that rave flyers have E pills on them and say things like "The Roll Fantastic" is wrong. That shit hasn't been about since 1995. I'd say that maybe one out of twenty promoters is in it for the money these days. Parties are losing money left and right, and it's a difficult time.

I go to, play at, and enjoy these events for one reason, and one reason only. I love drum and bass, and I like to hear it FUCKING LOUD. These are some of the few times that I get to enjoy that. I do think that this will be counterproductive, because now promoters will have every incentive to stop providing any safety whatsoever for the attendees.

Since air conditioning helps people on MDMA because they're so hot, should we take air conditioning's presence in a music venue as proof that the promoters support drug use? How about bathrooms? They need to throw up once in a while, too. Whaddya think?
-- brojames@ductape.net ----here to flip the script and channel your aggression inside----
[ Parent ]
And on the flip side... (none / 0) (#238)
by haflinger on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:16:35 PM EST

I also have the right to utterly despise the scene and its legions of happy-bouncy cretins, and yet think that this legislation is the wrong thing to do, mainly because legislating that people shouldn't enjoy themselves is a favourite pastime of western governments, and it never works.

For the record, however, I really enjoy trance, and was really upset when Tag's Trance Trip went offline.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

The Courage to Speak the Truth. (none / 0) (#212)
by Demiurge on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:14:25 PM EST

Now that the intellectually shallow thugs who advocate their increasingly strident polemics have defeated the white geek male mediocracy of K5, the courage to speak up against the intellectually and morally vapid clique is all too rare.  I commend you!

[ Parent ]
Eploiting America's youth? (4.33 / 6) (#128)
by ttyRazor on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:32:20 AM EST

Sec 2.5) [...]Raves have become little more than a way to exploit American youth.

Show me something that isn't a way to exploit American youth! While they're at it they should also ban sugary serials and Channel One , since commercial exploitation clearly a worthy excuse to put the 1st Amentment aside.

Will YOU Vote/Support Liberty? (2.83 / 6) (#129)
by thesync on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:36:12 AM EST

All of you upset over the RAVE Act, did you support and vote for freedom-loving politicians, or for the democrats and republicans that support the Drug War?

It's not too late!

To be fair... (4.00 / 1) (#160)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:37:42 PM EST

Libertarians weren't the only third party opposed to the drug war.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but... (none / 0) (#203)
by TheEldestOyster on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:48:03 PM EST

...they're the only freedom-loving third party opposed to it. ;)
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]
I guess that depends on whether you ... (none / 0) (#213)
by pyramid termite on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:15:59 PM EST

... mean freedom for people or freedom for fictional people, such as corporations also. I voted for Green and Libertarian candidates, as neither party has it quite right, but at least they're not Demopublicans.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Freedom (5.00 / 1) (#219)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:39:27 PM EST

When the libertarians give me the freedom to print hundred dollar bills, then I'll stop insisting that they take away certain other economic freedoms.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#239)
by haflinger on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:19:03 PM EST

The Green party are radical democrats. They believe that all politics should be resolved as much as possible at the local level. Actually look at the policies of the party, you might be surprised.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
And that is the problem. (none / 0) (#254)
by TheEldestOyster on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:45:03 PM EST

I have. The Green party is indeed radical democrats. And that is exactly the problem. I don't want to be held by the tyranny of the majority any more than I want to be held by the tyranny of the minority. I just want the government to follow the damn constitution. And, for the record, I have looked at their polices. They're a bunch of liberal hippies.
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]
Hippies perhaps. (none / 0) (#285)
by haflinger on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:03:26 AM EST

However, liberal in the American context has always struck me as code for "votes for the Democratic party." Anyway, that aside.

The Green idea to decentralize government is because of precisely the problem of the tyranny of the majority: they figure that if nearly all of the decisions are taken at the local level, i.e. people vote for the things which directly affect their own lives, then that tyranny will be much lesser.

For example, they are in general against the federal government's invasion of criminal law in the U.S.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Good != Best (none / 0) (#291)
by TheEldestOyster on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 07:11:45 AM EST

They're also environmentalists and anti-violence hippies. The Libertarian party has everything good about the Green party without the hippiness. Also, as I recall, Nader supported yearly income caps.
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]
Constitutionality ? (4.50 / 4) (#131)
by Simon Kinahan on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:42:30 AM EST

Surely there is absolutely no way this can possibly be constitutional ?

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
Why wouldn't it be? (4.33 / 3) (#140)
by Work on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:57:35 AM EST

The writeup is terribly misleading. It seems to think that the law is outlawing music - which if you read it, isnt true at all. It clarifies already existing 'crack house' codes to include large events. These large events can be any form of music or gathering of people. The law uses raves as an example in its explanation, but certainly the rest of the language is music-neutral.

[ Parent ]
Ah ... (3.00 / 2) (#154)
by Simon Kinahan on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:33:00 PM EST

The old weekend problem again. There really is a noticable drop in the quality of articles posted over the weekend. I wonder if K5 should consider raising the post threshholds on between 5pm on Friday and 9am on Monday.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
right of assembly (nt) (none / 0) (#243)
by startled on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:53:48 PM EST



[ Parent ]
not hardly. (none / 0) (#246)
by Work on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:26:15 PM EST

this law has nothing to do with assembling, it has to do with penalizing whoever profits from it.

[ Parent ]
wrong (none / 0) (#260)
by startled on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 12:35:48 AM EST

"(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `open or maintain any place' and inserting `open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily,';....
manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation,"

So we have "use... any place" and "make available for use... without compensation". Or let's look at the title:
"A bill to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purpose."

[ Parent ]
uhm..and? (none / 0) (#295)
by Work on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 10:13:18 AM EST

Again, the bill prohibits you from running a place where people are likely to do drugs. This is not new, nor is it anywhere near unconstitutional.

We could get into a debate about that, but that would be lengthy and would go into a great deal of case law. I'll be brief when I say that the 'right to assemble' doesn't include 'the right to assemble and break all sorts of laws'. Particularly drug violations, have never been favorably looked upon.

[ Parent ]

and what? (none / 0) (#302)
by startled on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 04:31:07 PM EST

You made one point, and I refuted it. Here's your post:
"this law has nothing to do with assembling, it has to do with penalizing whoever profits from it."

I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. Don't try to claim you said something you didn't. :) If you want to talk about other issues, that's fine, but when you raise one point, then I refute it, and then you ask me what my point is, that seems a little strange.

[ Parent ]
You think that they care about the Constitution? (none / 0) (#256)
by skyknight on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:07:15 PM EST

Just for laughs go look at the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments, and then go look through the news and try to find articles about government actions that don't violate at least one of them. Our lousy government walks over the Bill of Rights like its their job.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
There's probably some 1st amendment stuff (none / 0) (#306)
by artsygeek on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:12:14 PM EST

There's probably some 1st Amendment stuff, and some 4th Amendment stuff as well...I get a little squirmy when I see this kinda legislation. It's legislation that takes a lotta guts to vote against, as opponents frame you as being "soft on crime", and "Against children". As for whether or not A. It will pass (Grassley's Meth act got the ecstasy/rave mention bumped out of it a coupla years ago). B. It will make it through the house. And C. That it will make it past the courts. All three of those are dubious, at most.

[ Parent ]
The "Let's Make Raving Cool Again" Act (4.58 / 17) (#133)
by Anatta on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:46:09 AM EST

Finally the US Government does something I can really get behind.

Raves are lame now (at least in the US). They weren't always lame, but their popularity has destroyed them. They're huge cheezy events that generally invole young teenagers who bought their $25 ticket through TicketMaster, whose parents drop them off outside the big rave venue and wave to them as they go inside. Once inside, the kids dance to (generally boring) electronic music while waving plastic sticks filled with glowing toxic chemicals in each other's faces. They imbibe massive amounts of bad drugs, and gleefully consume luminescent candy. Once the rave is over, they leave and their parents drive them home.

This bill could be the single best thing to happen to raves since the invention of drum n' bass; if raves are sent back underground (where they belong) all the people who shouldn't be there won't go, and the whole scene will get better. The element of danger, the subversive creativity, the challenge of pulling off a party without getting caught will likley do the opposite of what the government is trying to do, and make raving cool again.

Seriously, I think the proposed bill sucks. That said, I do think the incentives created may actually be good for electronic music and "raving". Hell, after they banned "repetitive beats" in Britain, Autechre released their brilliant Anti EP that included a song with no repetitive beats in it at all (practically unheard of in western music). The EP included a disclaimer that a lawyer and a musicologist should be present during any public performance to verify the non-repitive nature of the rhythms.

And just as a final reminder, the bill hasn't passed yet, and it's not guaranteed to pass.
My Music

insightful (4.50 / 2) (#139)
by senjiro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:57:00 AM EST

I was just about to post a scathing retort of this proposed legislation. It really stems from a pile of misconceptions, misunderstandings, and is probably somehow being funded by the RIAA. You know that kids at raves download MP3z when they're coming down, don't you?
Anyway, your comments really bring up a good point. In the past 6 years, i've watched the scene plummet into the soulless depths of suburbia, and wept. I abhor any legislation like this, but it might just fix the scene.
it is by will alone that i set my mind in motion
[ Parent ]
on that note (5.00 / 2) (#145)
by dTaylorSingletary on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:04:23 PM EST

What really needs to happen are large public venues for beatless electronic music, or at least electronic music that's aims are not to dance. There needs to be more experience chambers, where the union of audio, visual, and decorative talent in combination with a large mass of people can provide a totally unique atmosphere without any pretenses of dancing, or a particular culture to belong to -- something outside of all of this, and yet firmly attached in a dedicated way.

Of course, I'll never have the kind of funds to do what I'm thinking of, and more than than likely no one would want to participate anyway. It's all about the dancing. :P
--
d. Taylor Singletary, reality technician
music: http://techra.elephantus.com
[ Parent ]

Agree (4.00 / 1) (#164)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:03:35 PM EST

I think you're dead right about what raves have become. Their popularity ruins them, and there has been a massive influx of kids who care more about the drugs than the music.

If this does get passed, I hope you're right, and that it'll only be good for raves, and electronic music. Still, I'd hate to be the one promoter who got caught...

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#190)
by thefirelane on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:42:34 PM EST

I just hope there is a P.U.N.K act next too. Then all my music would be cool again.


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
nah, you're just lazy. (4.00 / 1) (#310)
by levl289 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 10:29:10 PM EST

so to be clear:  you somehow started out in the scene being "cool", and you want to make sure that only "cool" people stay in the scene.

I realize there was a tongue-in-cheek factor to your post, but just to bring up some things that your ego might have gotten in the way of:

1.  you were probably made fun of in high school - why repeat that cycle upon other people?  educate.

2.  you're not looking hard enough - as tough as it might be, southern california (and other parts of CA), still have plenty of desert for underground parties - I know, I help promote them.  I'm sure wherever you live probably has the same conditions for party-throwage.

3.  the act is not a Good Thing, because while it may seem like it gets rid of people you don't like, you're next in the crosshairs by the same people that wrote this one.

--
"What sadness lengthens Romeo's hours?" "That, which having, makes them short."
[ Parent ]

I have an idea for a new law (3.91 / 12) (#144)
by AnalogBoy on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:04:02 PM EST

The "Truth in advertising" act:

1)    Any piece of legislature enacted by congress must have a descriptive and accurate name, in the colloquial language of the time, easily understood by all, and should not use "terms of endearment" to attempt to foster support from the populace.
2)    Any attempt at misleading the people of the USA by obscuring behind unnecessarily verbose or obfuscated terms shall be deemed illegal under this act.
3)    Each piece of legislation must stay clearly within the bounds established by the title.

Yeah, right.   Something like that would have the same chance of being passed as a resolution setting up a seperate branch of the government to ensure that the other branches are staying within constitutional boundries..  i mean, kind of like the checks and balances set up by the found...oh, fuck it, nevermind..
--
Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)

Hmm... (4.66 / 3) (#148)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:09:32 PM EST

Let's try to apply the act to K5 articles first.

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#271)
by klerck on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:39:02 AM EST

1. It could quite easily be argued that such laws would violate the first amendment rights of senators and respresentatives.

2. We already have such a branch of government. It's called the judicial branch. Remember that whole Supreme Court thing?

[ Parent ]
People will do what it takes to be free (4.62 / 8) (#150)
by AKA10 on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:21:32 PM EST

In Florida (and elsewhere) the local police has used a law written to shut down crack houses to cancel raves and shut down clubs. They made glowsticks and pacifiers "drug paraphernalia" in some places. This forced people who wanted to throw a party to set up a stage with turntables 30 miles out in the middle of the forest in secrecy. In some ways it was much better out there anyway because there was NO security or law enforcement (within 20 miles!) to mess with you and the lights projected on the tree canopy under the stars were an incredible sight! For the first time in a long time I felt FREE!

However this migration had the opposite effect of its intentions to "keep our children out of those horrible raves" because it was difficult to get in a club if you are under 18 (or 21) but if you are in the forest the average age would sometimes dip much lower and there would be kids of 14-16 out there getting trashed with no supervision at all (a bad thing)! Because of the obvious lack of laws there were also more dangers involved, for example overdoses could not be dealt with as quickly and girls being assaulted if they wandered off into the dark forest alone tripping. Sometimes things would get a little weird with people walking though the crowd shouting "get yer acid here!" and hippie drum circles banging along to breakbeat...

Anyway my point is the more repressive the laws get, the further underground people will go to do what they want, so the law will have less and less control over them.

This is the same comment I posted on the Smokedot article on the RAVE bill.

30 miles doesn't always cut it... (4.00 / 1) (#178)
by interrupt on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:38:32 PM EST

Out here in Phoenix, the police (sheriffs, whatever) have no qualms about driving down miles and miles of dirt roads out into the desert to bust our raves. Go figure.

[ Parent ]
Desert vs. forest. (none / 0) (#234)
by haflinger on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:45:23 PM EST

I suggest that the location may have something to do with that. It's rather easy to spot a group of people out in the open in the desert. In a forest in Florida, i.e. probably somewhat swampy, it may be somewhat more difficult. ;)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Ah but there are ways of preventing this (none / 0) (#284)
by AKA10 on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 04:30:04 AM EST

For example, all public information leads you to a "waypoint" where the occupants of the care are checked out and given further directions.

"Jincos, check. Car reeks of pot, check. OK guys take the 4th road on your left"

"All have military-like haircuts, hmmm. They are all listening to country music. Well I think it was like about another 50 miles strait ahead guys... Good luck!"

[ Parent ]

other reasons (none / 0) (#293)
by interrupt on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 09:20:01 AM EST

Another problem may be young kids and their evil parents... Take for instance, many flyers which might contain a map (available day of), but with none of the names of streets / landmarks filled in. You then get this information (A is.... B is...) from an info line a few hours before the party. Imagine that one kid somewhere in his bedroom gets caught by his mom... Well, you'd be surprised at the extent to which moms like that tend to fax maps like that directly to the police headquarters out here... Having nothing better to do, they dispatch a car. Once the red and blue shows up at the check in point, its inevitable that they will show up at the party (either they intimidate the last bit of directions, or they simply follow the glow of the lights out in the desert). Go figure.

Again, many of these wouldn't be an issue if the not truly underground crowd were excluded. i.e. if there is any chance you're getting busted by mommy & daddy, perhaps you should be doing homework rather than going to raves...

[ Parent ]

First Hand Experience? (3.72 / 11) (#151)
by Balagan on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 12:25:26 PM EST

I wonder how many of the respondents to this article have actually taken MDMA/Ecstacy or been to a party (aka: "rave")...

While i appreciate many of the comments very much, it does seem like a handful of them just fall into the basic patterns of at-a-distance opinions about the war on drugs... i wonder how many people see the face and reality of who "party kids"/"ravers" are and what they are like... whether enough people who are commenting that they dont see what the big deal is actually understand that we are talking about your average (or many times somewhat above average - specially considering the unimpressive image many americans have of "young people") teen, college student, and young person... not depraved, degenerate, good-for-nothings, out to destroy themselves.

Most "party kids" dont take "party" drugs out of a desire to self destruct or a lack of anything good in their lives. Yes, self destruction and a lack of substance to a person or their life is a leading cause of certain kinds of drug use in the suburbs of this here country (id say economic and social despair has a lot to do with high rates of destructive kinds of drug use in more urban areas), but the majority of young intelligent interesting party kids who are lead away in handcuffs by DEA agents or beaten and profiled by state troopers or taken advantage of by the many slimy clubs and promoters that sadly outnumber the good ones, take these drugs because they want to (because we want to - yes i am speaking for myself also - although id rather no one let that cloud what i am saying).

I know those of you who drink alchohol or smoke or even depend on coffee ever single day of your life to keep you functional, dont agonize over whether it is good or bad for you every single time you ingest anything. Often yes, but always no. And its not that each and every time you take something it is automatically bad for you. A random drink here or there for pleasure doesnt make you an alchoholic and isnt going to give you cirrhosis. The same is true for drugs of the kinds we are talking about.

Of course im interested in potential negative effects of drugs i may take... but all this hype and hypocricy about it needs to be wiped away... maybe a little rescheduling would help too. In this case though, the focus should be on how fucked up this proposed law is. Id hope to see a lot more discussion about what can be done effectively to oppose it.

Im not saying this world isnt full of too many idiots who dont have a clue what they are doing to themselves or to others. Im just saying that there is a higher percentage in the US Congress than there is among drug users at raves.

Wish i could say something silly like "We should outlaw congress and fine the government enough money to put it out of business for hosting a gathering that knowingly passes horrible laws all too often" ...but sadly, it doesnt do anything to make me feel any better after reading about a proposed law like this.

Ryan and Jacob would say... (1.40 / 10) (#157)
by Thinkit on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 01:10:46 PM EST

Ravers are primitive people. Hoping about and taking drugs will do nothing to forward the cause of logic. When the logical have taken over, maybe these ravers can be kept in zoos.

Give me a fucking break (3.83 / 6) (#167)
by majubma on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:28:52 PM EST

Quoth the poster:
The RAVE Act, whose acronym stands for "Reducing Americans' Vunerability to Ecstacy", would fine people or companies that organize or host events "featuring loud, pounding dance music" up to $2,000,000, and allows promoters to be jailed for up to 20 years, without requiring officials to prove that any of the attendees actually possessed drugs.
Quoth the actual law under consideration:
[It shall be unlawful to] manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.
I kind of lost the logical link between the text of the bill and the way you described it. Care to explain?


--Thaddeus Q. Thaddelonium, the most crookedest octopus lawyer in the West.
It's in the article... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:05:52 PM EST

...But I should have written more. Given that you don't see the connection, I didn't do a good enough job of explaining the ways this act could be used...

If any given state's Demand Reduction Coordinator (See Section 7) notices that there will be an event with electronic music (might be a rave, might not), all they need to do is make a visit to the person or company that is renting out their property, show them a copy of the Findings, and ask them whether they want to risk >$1,000,000 in fines, and 20 years in jail.

Very few arrests will actually be made under this law, because the findings make it so easy for each Demand Reduction Coordinator to pull the plug. As such, it'll have a chilling effect on live music.

That's my interpretation, anyways. I admit that there's a great deal of uncertainty with this act, but the purpose of my article was to explain how it could be abused.

[ Parent ]

That's what contracts are for..... (none / 0) (#210)
by trener on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:04:04 PM EST

I've thrown quite a few parties before.

I -always- make sure that there is a contract before I take a venue. If a venue refuses to sign a contract (or let me sign one), then I just don't rent the place.

Then, if they break the contract, you can always demand breach-of-contract damages. IE - pay for flyers, pay for flights, pay DJ fees, etc..

I had one venue threated to back out on me when they found out what a 'rave' was (hehe). I threatened them with breach-of-contract ($15000 was the figure I tossed at them), and they backed down. They weren't the most helpful venue owners after that, and they never rented to me again (not that I ever tried), but the event happened, and actually ended up being a pretty good party.

I'm not sure how much of my act was total bullshit, though. Truth be told, I was just making that 'breach-of-contract' thing up as I went. I don't actually know anyting about contract law. :) Trick is to just be confident and sound like you know what's up - chances are, they know as little as you.

[ Parent ]
Explanation (5.00 / 1) (#173)
by Rogerborg on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:06:44 PM EST

    I kind of lost the logical link between the text of the bill and the way you described it. Care to explain?

Ohh, ooh, I'll get this one. Once upon a time, there was a wonderful country called the United States of Ayemerica which had a very reasonable legal system overseen by special men and ladies called judges. In this magical land, the nice judges understood that their laws were not handed down by God and carved in stone, but were written by elected representatives. The clever judges realised that their mandate flowed entirely from enacting these laws of man, and that where there was any ambiguity in the wording, that they must consider the context in which they were written.

And so when cases were brought before these judges, and they were not sure how to cleave the bad from the good, they went back and read what the wise Congressman were thinking when they wrote the actual law. And then they would say the magic words: "It is clear that the intent of Congress was..."

And we all lived happily every after, for ever and ever and ever. Except for the bad men, of course, but they were all thrown into dark holes where they had to eat gruel for the rest of their lives, and they were very sad and very sorry for having run venues where other very bad people sold untaxed substances to consenting adults.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Hm. (none / 0) (#333)
by majubma on Fri Jul 12, 2002 at 01:11:50 PM EST

So which part of the proposed law is ambiguous?


--Thaddeus Q. Thaddelonium, the most crookedest octopus lawyer in the West.
[ Parent ]
better than thou (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by zoobiewa on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:29:18 PM EST

This makes just as much sense as prosecuting our government of the united states for making people vulnerable to drugs. It seems that they put higher standards on people that have the exact same responsibilities as themselves. If the USA can't win the drug war, what chance have a couple of poor rave promoters?

[ Parent ]
If you're going to reply to my post (none / 0) (#334)
by majubma on Fri Jul 12, 2002 at 01:15:54 PM EST

then please reply to what I say in my post, mm'kay?


--Thaddeus Q. Thaddelonium, the most crookedest octopus lawyer in the West.
[ Parent ]
A few thoughts. (1.81 / 16) (#182)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:00:30 PM EST

Part of me is overjoyed to see this legislation, for two reasons. Firstly, I hate techno. Vehemently. Electronic music is all garbage (with the exception of the stuff that's done by real musicians- KMFDM and Pig, for example). I've heard tons of it, because I have a friend who's very into the music, and none of it is salvagable. Mostly, though, I hate the drug culture associated with it. I follow the straightedge lifestyle, which dictates moderation and abstinence- no smoking, no drinking, no sex, and no drugs. I hate drugs with a passion, and I hate rave culture because it promotes, embraces, and embodies drug culture. You can argue that there are ravers and raves that don't promote drug use, and I'll agree, but nobody can deny that drugs and rave culture are inexorably linked. Because this legislation attempts to supress and eliminate this cultural drug outlet, I applaud it. Although I realize that kids will get drugs regardless of the legality of raves, raves still make drugs more accessible. Furthermore, I think it's possible to have raves without drugs- it simply requires cooperation on the part of everyone involved. There's a club here in Minnesota that is run for the benefit of the punk/hardcore scene that continually operates at just above operational costs. They have very strict rules that are imposed on those who enter- for example, no one is allowed to bring alcohol, because simply having alcohol present at an all-ages show results in a huge fine for the club owners, who can't afford it. Bring booze, get banned. The club handles the rules with memberships- bring an ID and get a membership, bring booze and you get banned. It's a very effective method and it works because everyone who goes to shows there wants the place to stay open, so they follow the rules. Raves could operate similarly- if the promoters want a drug-free event and advertise this, then it will be a drug-free event, if the attendees are really so committed to their scene and the music that they're willing to give up their drugs for a night. If all they're looking for is a place to get high, however, they'll bring drugs and, hopefully, get kicked out. You ravers will agree that these are the kind of people that you don't want in your scene. However, I do agree that this bill is a little too open-ended. Altough the elimination of live techno is a latent, as opposed to manifest, function of the bill, it still has that potential. Personally, I support this, but logically, I cannot, because it's exclusionary and unfair. I think legislation that aims to eliminate drugs from raves is noble and necessary, but this bill is not the legislation that will safely accomplish this.
"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
Er... Going just a wee bit overboard? (5.00 / 2) (#221)
by pla on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:47:10 PM EST

Just as a disclaimer, I assume you posted this completely as a troll. I can't resist, though, so...


Firstly, I hate techno.

And I hate rap. That doesn't mean I want to see absolutely unconscionable punishments for any gathering of those who *do* like rap. Your preferences (and mine, and Joe Schmoe's, and even George Bush's) do not carry, nor should they, the mandate of actual law. Opinions do not equal reality.


I follow the straightedge lifestyle, which dictates moderation and abstinence

Whether you realize it or not, you've just expressed an internally inconsistent idea. Moderation means knowing one's limits, not total abstinence. Look at the literal definition, "to lessen the intensity or extremeness of". Total abstention goes to one extreme, opposite that of total indulgence. Avoiding the extremes means neither.


...no sex...

Congratulations, you will very neatly remove yourself from the gene pool as a result.


You can argue that there are ravers and raves that don't promote drug use, and I'll agree, but nobody can deny that drugs and rave culture are inexorably linked.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood a key word there. If, as you claim, the two ideas (drugs and raves) have an "inexorable" connection, then you CANNOT (rationally) agree, as you claim to, that raves and/or ravers exist that do not use/support drugs.


Raves could operate similarly

Did you read the parent article? Many raves *DO* operate similarly. The organizers go to the trouble of hiring rent-a-cops to try to keep the events drug, alcohol, and weapon free. Somehow our senator-from-lala-land has interpreted that as a negative feature. So which should we consider it, a sign of good faith, or proof of ill intent? It can't count as both, you know...


I think legislation that aims to eliminate drugs from raves is noble and necessary.

Okay, all sarcasm aside, this bill does not seek to eliminate drugs from raves. It seeks to eliminate raves, even if the organizer could somehow PROVE, with 100% reliability, that not a single illegal substance or activity ever sullied the event. Even if you accept that the WOsD has a justifiable purpose (which from your comments I will assume as true), this bill does not serve that purpose. This bill basically bans any sort of congregation of people that includes a certain (very vague) category of music. You said you do find *some* groups, like KMFDM, not too bad. This bill could put an end to exactly such groups ever touring again.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, you did... (2.00 / 1) (#270)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:09:42 AM EST

Just as a disclaimer, I assume you posted this completely as a troll. I can't resist, though, so...

Your assumptions are invalid. Invalid, I tell you, invalid!

And I hate rap. That doesn't mean I want to see absolutely unconscionable punishments for any gathering of those who *do* like rap. Your preferences (and mine, and Joe Schmoe's, and even George Bush's) do not carry, nor should they, the mandate of actual law. Opinions do not equal reality.

Agreed, which is why I attempted to express this in my original post. It's a shame only one person seemed to get it.
Let me break my ideas down for you.
Drugs = bad, and techno = bad (logically and topologically, I could make the assumption that drugs = techno, but I wont). If drugs = bad, then events relating to drugs also = bad. Drugs should be eliminated. Here I could make the statement that events relating to drugs should therefore be eliminated, but I wont, because I don't believe that. I simply believe that drugs should be eliminated from the events in question. Since the legislation being discussed intends to shut down ALL raves, not to eliminate drugs from raves, then I disagree with and condemn it.

> Whether you realize it or not, you've just expressed an internally inconsistent idea. Moderation means knowing one's limits, not total abstinence. Look at the literal definition, "to lessen the intensity or extremeness of". Total abstention goes to one extreme, opposite that of total indulgence. Avoiding the extremes means neither.
See my response above for my thoughts on this.
> Congratulations, you will very neatly remove yourself from the gene pool as a result.
Lets hope you follow suit.

> Again, you seem to have misunderstood a key word there. If, as you claim, the two ideas (drugs and raves) have an "inexorable" connection, then you CANNOT (rationally) agree, as you claim to, that raves and/or ravers exist that do not use/support drugs.
Logically untrue. An inexorable connection does not imply a constant connection, i.e., the idea that raves will always = drugs, but simply that raves and drugs are often associated, and rightly so.

Okay, all sarcasm aside, this bill does not seek to eliminate drugs from raves. It seeks to eliminate raves, even if the organizer could somehow PROVE, with 100% reliability, that not a single illegal substance or activity ever sullied the event. Even if you accept that the WOsD has a justifiable purpose (which from your comments I will assume as true), this bill does not serve that purpose. This bill basically bans any sort of congregation of people that includes a certain (very vague) category of music.

I agree with you, and that's why I said exactly that in my original post. Please make sure to pay more attention next time.

"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#227)
by FuriousXGeorge on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:13:39 PM EST

"I hate drugs with a passion"

Have you ever tried them?

--
-- FIELDISM NOW!
[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0) (#261)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:03:56 AM EST

And I chose straightedge.
"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
Cool (none / 0) (#262)
by FuriousXGeorge on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:22:16 AM EST

Why do you hate them so much, that is, why the choice for straight edge, what drugs did you try, etc.  I'm just curious.
-- FIELDISM NOW!
[ Parent ]
Hey I don't like Country and Western (none / 0) (#228)
by salsaman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:13:59 PM EST

Let's ban that too !!!

[ Parent ]
Please. (none / 0) (#268)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:57:52 AM EST

I specifically said that it's wrong to ban techno because people listen to it while on drugs. People could just as easily try to ban the music I listen to because it inspires people to dance violently.
"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
Right. (none / 0) (#275)
by verb on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:51:47 AM EST

You just said you'd like to see it banned because you don't like the sound of it.

Clearly, this is the honest and open-minded position. Sheesh. I remember why I stopped going to hardcore shows.

-tv

[ Parent ]

Moderation... Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#232)
by verb on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:43:34 PM EST

Yeah. Straightedge is all about moderation. Tell that to my friend... straightedge knuckle-draggers threw rocks at him because they saw him smoking too close to their talent-free punk show. Do you see me trying to outlaw your ska shows?

It doesn't take a very strong man to hate those who like different music, smoke, or drink. It takes a stronger man -- and a smarter one -- to stick to his beliefs without trying to outlaw other peoples' music, or attack them.

What's really funny is the fact that thirty years ago, 'rock music' could've received the same treatment.

--the verb

[ Parent ]

Begin head scratching immediately... (none / 0) (#267)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:56:04 AM EST

Yeah. Straightedge is all about moderation. Tell that to my friend... straightedge knuckle-draggers threw rocks at him because they saw him smoking too close to their talent-free punk show. Do you see me trying to outlaw your ska shows?
1) Moderation and the situation you described are completely unrelated.
2) Talent-free punk shows are better than talent-free techno shows because at least we get to be cathartically violent. Actually, I don't much dig punk shows. Punk kids don't know how to mosh right.

It doesn't take a very strong man to hate those who like different music, smoke, or drink. It takes a stronger man -- and a smarter one -- to stick to his beliefs without trying to outlaw other peoples' music, or attack them.
Jesus, did you read my post? While I did attack people who do drugs, which I'm wont to do from time to time, I specifically said that trying to ban their music is wrong wrong wrong! It doesn't take a very smart man to skim a discussion and take out of it what he wants to respond to. It takes a smarter man to display perspicacity.

"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#276)
by verb on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:03:45 AM EST

Jesus, did you read my post? While I did attack people who do drugs, which I'm wont to do from time to time, I specifically said that trying to ban their music is wrong wrong wrong! It doesn't take a very smart man to skim a discussion and take out of it what he wants to respond to. It takes a smarter man to display perspicacity.

I did read your post. It was a muddled, inarticulate jumble of pissy moaning about a genre you don't like and people you feel superior to. The patched-on ending, about how you approve of banning raves because techno sucks but can't support it 'logically', was especially amusing.

You've stated in numerous other places in this thread that you believe techno sucks, drugs suck, and that you "could prove" that they are always linked together. I've never tasted alcohol in my life, never done drugs, never smoked, etc. I've attended and enjoyed raves. I love good electronica. You seem to froth at the mouth when the genre is mentioned. It would be amusing if it weren't so typical of the straightedge kids I know.

--the verb

[ Parent ]
to each his own (none / 0) (#320)
by ductape on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 04:07:37 PM EST

Talent-free punk shows are better than talent-free techno shows because at least we get to be cathartically violent. Actually, I don't much dig punk shows. Punk kids don't know how to mosh right

wow.  since when have we gone to punk shows, or any other shows, to see people "do it right"?  i went to the warp tour in houston and had a blast, then went to a rave the next weekend and had a blast, not because one is better than the other, but because i have a passion for live music, in any goddamn form.  no drugs at either, and i had a good time (well, i did chain-smoke at the rave).

i'm also going to point out that anti-flag is a very straightedge band, but yet they are quite accepting.  what i knew of as straight-edge was sober, respectfull, and tolerant.  guess it's lost that sheen.

the whole point of live music is not always the talent.  if that's what you want, go to the record store and buy some Dream Theater CDs and listen to them in headphones.  live music is a physical experiance; moshing, dancing, the soundwaves ripping through your body, sweat pouring from you as you redline on adrenaline (hey, that's a drug!).

there is a time and a place for everything.  this means time for moderation, time for drugs, time for a suit, time for sobriety.  until you realize that, you'll end up hating everyone and everything because they're not you.  and they won't be anything other than themselves unless you give them some understanding.

so quit being a punk-ass bitch and live your life to your own goals and have fun, dammit.

p.s. apologies on the well-done nature of this post....it was necessary.

--smd. #include <disclaimer.h>
[ Parent ]

Enough, moron. (none / 0) (#326)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Wed Jul 10, 2002 at 02:02:36 AM EST

Firstly, this:
"The general conception is that straightedge is intolerant and inflexible, and to some extent, that's true- straightedge does not teach tolerance by nature. However, I'm a tolerant individual. If other people choose to do drugs, I might give them my opinions, but I wont lecture them at length, demean them, or physically assault them. Straightedge is a personal choice, just as the choice to do drugs is, and since nobody is ever trying to force drugs down my throat, I don't try to force sXe down theirs."
-ME

Don't lecture me about tolerance and straightedge when you aren't. Tolerance in straightedge is a minority opinion, and I'm a proud and vocal member of that minority. So fuck you, pal.

> there is a time and a place for everything. this means time for moderation, time for drugs, time for a suit, time for sobriety. until you realize that, you'll end up hating everyone and everything because they're not you. and they won't be anything other than themselves unless you give them some understanding.
Again, something you've read into my belief system. Who I actually am and who you portray me to be are entirely different, so please just fuck off and die. I'm getting really sick of this bullshit.
"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
KMFDM suck! :) (none / 0) (#240)
by haflinger on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:30:49 PM EST

Sorry, I can't resist.
Electronic music is all garbage (with the exception of the stuff that's done by real musicians- KMFDM and Pig, for example).
To quote KMFDM themselves...
Our music is simple
Totally fake
It's done by machines because they don't make mistakes

We have no lyrics
Our message is nil
We hate all DJs
They're making us ill
Whatever we tell ya
Is meant to be crap
We hate all music
And especially rap

We don't like Michael Jackson
We hate Depeche Mode
We don't care for Madonna
Or Kylie Minogue

KMFDM sucks!

That's part of the lyrics of "Sucks" on Angst, a fantastic, i.e. non-sucky, but occasionally sarcastic album. I hope you listen to it sometime and understand the point they're trying to make.

Anyway, back to my point. Your post boils down to this statement: All electronic music is bad, except for the stuff made by good musicians. This is such a noncontroversial position. :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Jesus Christ (none / 0) (#247)
by PhillipW on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:29:12 PM EST

Fascist straightedge is SO 1997, don't you get it?

Seriously though, your arguments are poor. First off, how can you find legislation that bans something that is already illegal noble? You should find it to be a waste of time and money, which is precisely what it is. You of course mask this saying that it makes it easier to find and punish these elements. That's just plain stupid. Following this logic, we need to outlaw sXe folks, as they are all a bunch of brutes who beat the shit out of someone if they see said person smoking. Nevermind that assault is already illegal! That's a steaming pile of cow shit of an argument.

On top of all this, you think something should be illegal simply because you hate it "with a passion." This is foolish.

Lastly, KMFDM are no more or no less real musicians than any other electronic act.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
I'm not a straightedge fascist. (none / 0) (#266)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:50:45 AM EST

You of course mask this saying that it makes it easier to find and punish these elements.

I said that? What was I on?

Following this logic, we need to outlaw sXe folks, as they are all a bunch of brutes who beat the shit out of someone if they see said person smoking.

We're not all bad...neither are all ravers. I think we should treat sXe kids who beat people up, just like we should treat ravers who do/deal drugs- relocate them from their social surroundings to the local police station.

>On top of all this, you think something should be illegal simply because you hate it "with a passion." This is foolish.

Agreed, which is why I didn't say that. Did you read my post?

"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
Comments from the other side. (5.00 / 2) (#252)
by cgenman on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 10:27:29 PM EST

I can't tell if this comment is intended to start a flame war or not... I've had straight edge friends, and they used to sound exactly like this.  Then of course they tried smoking pot, realized it wasn't the hideous evil it had been made out to be, and learned the true meaning of moderation.  They're clean by choice now, but indulge on occasion.

>Firstly, I hate techno. Vehemently. Electronic music is all garbage (with the exception of the stuff that's done by real musicians- KMFDM and Pig, for example). <

I've never heard pig, but I can't say I blame you.  Most "techno" released to the mainstream is repetitve house junk.  Try something with a little more funk / soul / Jazz, like LTJ Bukem, DJ Krush, or Microbe (plug for a friend).  Jungle, Drum 'n Base, and two-step branch might be more musically rich than you expect, though if you are in a KMFDM mood Gabber might be more appropriate.

Still, though, no government policy should be made based around the percieved quality of the art...  You seem to grasp this.

>Mostly, though, I hate the drug culture associated with it.<

But we loooove you!  lol.  Actually nobody I know in the scene has done any drugs in the past two years...  Well, one , but anyway it isn't as pervasive as you might think.  

I'm sure you will get dozens of responses to this post, but if you do respond...  Why do you hate the rave "drug culture"?  Drugs themselves can be seen as a bad thing, and there is ample evidence both personal and researched of huge negative effects of unfettered and irresponsible drug use.  But the positive culture is why we keep going to raves long after we figure out we don't need drugs.  Why do you hate the culture?

>I follow the straightedge lifestyle, which dictates moderation and abstinence<

As another poster pointed out, abstinence is not a form of moderation.

>Nobody can deny that drugs and rave culture are inexorably linked.<

Sure, I'll deny it.  Happy Hardcore is, i believe, they type of rave you are looking for.  It is an incredible over saccarined, disgustingly happy type of J-Poppy music that is strangely unenjoyable when on any drugs...  

But more to the point, nobody can deny that inflexibility and violence are linked, or that Soccer and riots are linked, or that business trips and infidelity are linked.  But we don't make inflexibility, Soccer, and business trips illegal.  The government needs to keep to banning the particular actions which are deemed necessary to the functioning of the society, not the social conditions that may eventually lead to such actions.

>Furthermore, I think it's possible to have raves without drugs- it simply requires cooperation on the part of everyone involved.<

It is actually getting to be quite common, judging by the complaints I've recieved :).

>Raves could operate similarly- if the promoters want a drug-free event and advertise this, then it will be a drug-free event, if the attendees are really so committed to their scene and the music that they're willing to give up their drugs for a night. <

Most ravers are very aware and want very much for places to stay open.  Many try to bring candy and water in to help out their fellow ravers, and many more stay after to help clean up.  I'm sorry if you can't see this, but it really is about the community.  And yes, drugs are a way into the community by losing your inhibitions.  You'll notice that alcohol is completely unavailable in most raves... Alcohol brings an angry, foolish vibe to the proceedings that just isn't what the scene is about.  

And the clubs that play electronic music just don't have any drugs.  I'm sorry to tell you, but the club owners ARE very aware that the full force of the law can be brought down upon them, and the goers generally frown upon trying to buy / sell drugs inside.  

>You ravers will agree that these are the kind of people that you don't want in your scene.<

What the ones that just want to get fried?  They can do that at home.  They do do that at home.  You really don't need to go to raves to get drugs.  I'm sure if you asked the people that you are close to, at least two people would know someone that could help you.  The people that are more interested in just getting fried / baked / whatevered tend to congregate, and can easily find dozens of potential hookups in one night of calling.

I've seen estimates as high as 10% of america gets stoned once a month.  That means 1 out of every 10 people have some sort of supply chain, and many more know people who are part of that chain but don't indulge.  It's everywhere, please try to get over the perception that this is unusual.  Stopping raves doesn't stop the supply chain.

>Personally, I support this, but logically, I cannot, because it's exclusionary and unfair. <

Ah, thank you for recognizing that personal preferences shouldn't dictate policy.

>I think legislation that aims to eliminate drugs from raves is noble and necessary, but this bill is not the legislation that will safely accomplish this.<

And yet we don't attempt to remove cocane from the boardroom?  Or drugs from schools?  Once you try any drug you realize just how overhyped they are.  They are not the savior of mankind nor are they the work of the devil.  Eliminating drugs from raves needs to be by the choice of the promoter and the people attending, not by shutting down the raves.  Otherwise they will go back underground without security, a safe location, weapons checks, adequate water, and available medical personnel.  

Sigh... this issue has dominated our culture for the past fifty years... Isn't it about time we find something else to pass blatantly unconstitutional laws about?

-me

"A straightedge and a hippie walk into a bar..."
- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

My thoughts on straightedge + this reply (1.00 / 1) (#264)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:42:42 AM EST

>I can't tell if this comment is intended to start a flame war or not...

I was going for serious discussion, not flame war.

> I've had straight edge friends, and they used to sound exactly like this. Then of course they tried smoking pot, realized it wasn't the hideous evil it had been made out to be, and learned the true meaning of moderation.

I have tried drugs and I chose to be poison free.

> I've never heard pig, but I can't say I blame you. Most "techno" released to the mainstream is repetitve house junk.

As I said in my post, I have friends who have played lots of different types of techno for me, and though I can't name the creators or genres, nothing to date has really switched me on. Oh, and check out Pig's "Wrecked" album.

> Actually nobody I know in the scene has done any drugs in the past two years... Well, one , but anyway it isn't as pervasive as you might think.

Honestly, I realize that clean ravers do exist, but I've never actually met one. Perhaps it was because all the ravers I've met were in high school and hadn't really grown up. Most of the ravers/rave attendees I've met didn't talk about much but the drugs they did at their last social gathering.

> But the positive culture is why we keep going to raves long after we figure out we don't need drugs. Why do you hate the culture?

This is a personal opinion. I just find rave music/fashion/people to be uncouth and distinctly lacking intellectual aspects. Again, this is probably because I haven't experienced everything rave and, as such, I suppose I'll say that I don't like what rave culture I've been exposed to. I'll ask you to notice, though, that my post didn't specifically say "rave culture"- it said "rave drug culture". The idea that raving must be accompanied by drugs exists, and the idea that chemically induced states are necessary to enjoying life is one that, as a straightedge individual, I cannot tolerate.

> As another poster pointed out, abstinence is not a form of moderation.

True. That's why I say abstinence AND moderation- abstinence from drugs/sex, moderation in other things. For example, I try not to eat more food than I really need.

> But more to the point, nobody can deny that inflexibility and violence are linked,

An obvious reference to my lifestyle. This is the part where I discuss my beliefs on straightedge.
The general conception is that straightedge is intolerant and inflexible, and to some extent, that's true- straightedge does not teach tolerance by nature. However, I'm a tolerant individual. If other people choose to do drugs, I might give them my opinions, but I wont lecture them at length, demean them, or physically assault them. Straightedge is a personal choice, just as the choice to do drugs is, and since nobody is ever trying to force drugs down my throat, I don't try to force sXe down theirs.

The government needs to keep to banning the particular actions which are deemed necessary to the functioning of the society, not the social conditions that may eventually lead to such actions.

Agreed. To play devil's advocate, however, I'll present this situation. Suppose murder suddenly evolved into a musical genre. Murder fashion, murder music, and murder accessories suddenly started flying off the shelves at Hot Topic. Suppose, then, that, at murder music shows, it became typical for some people to suddenly find themselves, much to their chagrin, murdered. Although not all murder music shows resulted in murder, this sort of activity was happening enough that people started to become concerned. The government couldn't ban the music, fashion, or accessories, because those in and of themselves did not constitute murder, but they wanted to stop the actual murdering, as is perfectly reasonable, so they authorized the surcease of any murder music performances at which murder was certainly present. I realize a few of the conditions are vastly different, but the basic conundrum is the same, and the governments conclusion is reasonable.

> And the clubs that play electronic music just don't have any drugs. I'm sorry to tell you, but the club owners ARE very aware that the full force of the law can be brought down upon them, and the goers generally frown upon trying to buy / sell drugs inside.
Again, not something I've experienced, but I'll take your word, and agree that it's positive.

>It's everywhere, please try to get over the perception that this is unusual.

I realize that drugs use isn't unusual, and that's one thing that really angers me...

> Eliminating drugs from raves needs to be by the choice of the promoter and the people attending, not by shutting down the raves. Otherwise they will go back underground without security, a safe location, weapons checks, adequate water, and available medical personnel.
Just shut down the raves at which dealing is present and/or eliminate the dealers- ask the attendees to report the people who are dealing and boot them out. I realize that this sort of activity does happen, but if it happened enough, then this whole "ban raves because raving=drug use" wouldn't be a problem.
My final point is that though I don't condone the use of drugs, I don't condemn responsible drug use- it's just not for me. My major problem with drugs is when people take drugs without understanding the related dangers (dangers which you pointed out). Maybe we should license drug users and require them to take a class and pass tests, as some states do with guns.

"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
First they came for the jews... (none / 0) (#315)
by cgenman on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 05:56:31 AM EST

>I have tried drugs and I chose to be poison free.

Ah, I remember when I first tried arsenic...  :).  Seriously, though, I greatly respect your choice, now that I know it is based upon experience rather than reference.  I similarly haven't done anything harder than weed in two years, and then weed was only once.  That doesn't mean the times I did drugs weren't valuable, given the choice to do it again or not I would have started younger.  But that value does diminish with experience.  

>Honestly, I realize that clean ravers do exist, but I've never actually met one. Perhaps it was because all the ravers I've met were in high school and hadn't really grown up. Most of the ravers/rave attendees I've met didn't talk about much but the drugs they did at their last social gathering.

Yeah, the early ravers can be drug-focused rather than music or culture foused.  As people get older and more experienced in the scene they tend to mature.  After about 4 years people hardly do anything at all.  The scene here in New England tends to skew older, probably largely due to the seasonal nature of raves and rave promotions here (ever tried to dance at a wharehouse party in the snow?).

Still though, it's hard to blame the young ones for being excited and talking incessantly about their experiences when they have just come across something so ...different while breaking a rather large social taboo.

>Suppose murder suddenly evolved into a musical genre... Suppose, then, that, at murder music shows, it became typical for some people to suddenly find themselves, much to their chagrin, murdered.. The government couldn't ban the music, fashion, or accessories, because those in and of themselves did not constitute murder, but they wanted to stop the actual murdering, as is perfectly reasonable, so they authorized the surcease of any murder music performances at which murder was certainly present.

How do you know that murder is present?  If you observe the murders directly, you can stop them.  If you observe repeated murderers going to shows, you can make non-congregation with other murderers a parole condition and arrest everyone with a prior conviction.  If something is found to draw a nondescript crowd that cities find dangerous or undesirable, the cities have the legal right and arguably the responsibility to deny them the proper permits... this doesn't stop the shows it just moves them outside of my backyard.  But do you see how similar banning shows is to banning music, clothing, or parephenalia?  If shows are dangerous you work with promoters to ensure that nobody gets, for example, trampled to death by stampeding crowds.  You don't just ban the shows because you think people are going to do something bad.

>The idea that chemically induced states are necessary to enjoying life is one that, as a straightedge individual, I cannot tolerate.

Life is a chemically induced state.  The number of distinct chemicals in your hormone and neurotransmitter systems is almost as astonishing as the number of drugs prescribed for sake of attempting to normalize that system.  I personally feel we should work towards improving our default chemical state, rather than becoming dependent upon external means, but many people do work towards improvement through stepping outside their normal chemical state.  

>I realize that drugs use isn't unusual, and that's one thing that really angers me...

Why angers?  I can understand dissappoints, dismays, depresses... but angers?  Anger implies a broken personal investment.  Why are you angry that drugs aren't exceptional?

>Just shut down the raves at which dealing is present and/or eliminate the dealers-

Eliminating the dealers would be fine with me, you should be doing your transactions before hand with someone you trust, not a random, potentially skeezy person you just met.  But elimitaing the raves where dealing is present?  How do you know dealing is present?  More importantly, how could you directly observe dealings in such a way that you couldn't stop the dealers without stopping the rave?

>ask the attendees to report the people who are dealing and boot them out.

Many dealers are nice friendly people, that happen to be there and don't mind sharing their stash to make a little on the side.  However, maybe 1 in 10 are serious full-time dealers, and don't care / don't have a clue what the scene is about.  These are the people that it would be best to get rid of, but these are also the people that you just don't want to get caught ratting out.  Trust me on this one, don't poke strange dogs and don't f with the dealers.

>My final point is that though I don't condone the use of drugs, I don't condemn responsible drug use- it's just not for me. My major problem with drugs is when people take drugs without understanding the related dangers (dangers which you pointed out). Maybe we should license drug users and require them to take a class and pass tests, as some states do with guns.

I agree.  One of the major problems with supporting responsible drug use is that the act of doing such is illegal.  Clean needle programs are illegal, testing kits are illegal (though, thankfully, legal if imported from the UK), and passing out pamphlets is basically illegal.  A group from my college (when I was a college student) went to a few local high schools and spoke to kids and passed out informational pamphlets.  That was the plan, anyway.  The school board who approved the measure and who had been informed that these were all people who had tried drugs and were there to inform the kids of an insider's view of the dangers of drug use realized that morning that the pamphlets would eventually find their way back to the parents and the parnts were going to have a fit.  We were allowed to talk to the kids, and they could read our pamphlets while standing there, but the couldn't take any and read them before they had to make a decision about raving / partying / etc.  That's too bad, we had some pretty nasty tales in there about about black - tar heroin, mushroom overdosing, and other things that happened to friends of ours.  

And that comes from the same logic.  Drugs are illegal.  Raves support drug use.  QED raves are illegal.  Information facilitates drug use.  QED information is illegal.  The people passing out pamphlets have tried drugs.  QED the people passing out pamphlets are illegal.  The school board allowed these kids to pass out pamphlets and inform my kids.  QED...

A large number of people don't actively participate in drug-related discussions because they're afraid of being found out and tracked by the authorities or ostracized by our (I'm assuming you're from the US) largely straight-edge culture.  This posting basically guarentees that I will never become President of the US, or any major corporation.

Ah well, I have too many scruples and my intelligence it too high to be president anyway.

-me

I'd post this with my name but, ah well, you understand.
- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

stereotypes (none / 0) (#263)
by jeffycore on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:38:51 AM EST

you'd think of all people a straight edge kid would try to avoid stereotypes. or maybe you do beat up people you see smoking and wear white shirts and jeans exclusively. grow up man. just cause you don't like it doesn't mean its inherently evil. i hate earth crisis but i don't go around smashing their records.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 0) (#265)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 01:44:59 AM EST

No, I don't beat up people who use drugs, and yes, I hate Earth Crisis, too.
"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
living in hell (none / 0) (#298)
by Shren on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 11:21:29 AM EST

Part of me is overjoyed to see this legislation, for two reasons. Firstly, I hate techno . . . Mostly, though, I hate the drug culture associated with it.

Living in this country will always be hell untill people stop demanding that the state imprison thier neighbors.

[ Parent ]

Sounds to me... (none / 0) (#311)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 11:16:35 PM EST

Like you haven't seen many hardcore shows.
Firstly, check out the first Darkest Hour video at the bottom of this page.
Secondly, what you think of as moshing and what I think of as moshing are very different. Sure, going to a Pantera show and watching the huge fat guys knock eachother around isn't much fun, but when you go to a hardcore show, you have people moshing not just to push eachother around, but to have fun. This usually involves a form of "dancing" which is characterized by frantic windmills, jump kicks, acrobatics, and other martial-arts influenced moves. It's actually very fun and very positive, because it's done in good fun, not agression. If I accidentally kick somebody while dancing, like I did tonight, they don't freak out, they just pat you on the shoulder and help you get on top of the crowd. Going to a live hardcore show is actually extremely positive and until you've actually experienced the vibe of one, or actually seen Darkest Hour live (who are extremely funny and very positive), shut the fuck up, please.

"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
Look, pal... (none / 0) (#325)
by XthisishowthebeautifuldecayX on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 09:26:10 PM EST

1) Get aggro at a show and you'll get the boot. Simple as that. If it's in fun, then it's fun, but it's pretty obvious when you're getting intentionally violent, and then you're removed.
2) How is the word "straightedge" contradictory? You claim it is and yet don't bother to explain... 3) Since you obviously know nothing about hardcore, you may cease discussing it, and the efficacy of straightedge in relation to it, immediately...
"it sounds like you should save a prayer for me, but I'll take my chances with the unworthy" -Darkest Hour
[ Parent ]
No more stories...nothing needs to be said. (1.12 / 16) (#189)
by Thinkit on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 04:40:11 PM EST

All that matters is http://singlegoal.com and http://eternalambition.com.  This is the purpose:

MEANING

--The meaning of a conscious being is to pursue one of two goals.

Among the criteria listed below, only LOVE part 2 is achievable.

In each goal, conscious beings:

1. Control reality.

2. Know reality.

3. Have mastery of potential reality.

4. Have mastery of the abstract plane.

LOVE:

1. Exactly two conscious beings exist for all time and space.

2. A seed of love binds the two.

POWER:

1. Exactly one conscious being exists for all time and space.

This is not a constructive comment at all... (4.28 / 7) (#198)
by gpejski on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:37:09 PM EST

And is not intended to be. What the fuck is going on down in the states? It seems like I am reading shit like this every day about the US. I find this so very disturbing.

You think YOU'RE confused....? (4.80 / 5) (#200)
by Dredd on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:46:38 PM EST

Try living here. I feel like I'm in 30's Germany where I keep looking over my shoulder wondering "If I pack up and move to $OTHER_COUNTRY, could I get an asylum petition heard?"

[ Parent ]
Article: Re-Edited (4.62 / 8) (#199)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 05:40:26 PM EST

Many people have posted comments which offer valid criticism of my article, and point out places where I should have more clearly spelled out how I was reaching my conclusions. As such, even though I cannot retract + modify my original article, as I would wish, I can at least attempt to address their concerns, and try to make my article more worthy of being posted on K5. Although I thank those who voted for it, I don't believe that my write-up did the issue justice, nor was the article of the quality that most expect from K5.

So, without further ado, here's my new version. Comments are appreciated. Also, should I ask Rusty to replace my original article with the new version? (Is it, at minimum, better than the old one?)

---

RAVE Act: Live Electronic Music Threatened

---

The RAVE Act, whose acronym stands for "Reducing Americans' Vunerability to Ecstacy", could fine people or companies that organize or host raves, which they broadly and vaguely define as events "featuring loud, pounding dance music", anywhere from $250,000 to $2,000,000, and allows promoters and property owners to be jailed for up to 20 years. This law not only is a danger to civil liberties, but also would effectively eliminate live electronic music in the US, given the enormous risks now associated with it.

---

Senators Durbin (D-IL), Hatch (R-UT), Grassley (R-IA) and Leahy (D-VT) introduced this bill on June 27th. The full text is available here, or it can be found by going to thomas.loc.gov, and searching for S2633.

An interesting thing about this bill is that Section 2, "Findings", speaks quite verbosely about the intent of the act, to crack down on raves, but Section 3, which contains the actual modifications the 1970 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, makes no mention of raves, parties, or electronic music. As K5 member Majubma shows, the changes are quite minor (insertions are bold, deletions are bracketed):

(a) Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful to -

(1) knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance;

(2) manage or control any [building, room, or enclosure] place, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the [building, room, or enclosure] place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.

No big deal, right? These are just minor, common sense changes to an old law to bring it up to date. Except for the acronym in its name, one would think that the actual law itself has little if anything to do with raves, or electronic music.

Upon closer examination, this isn't the case at all. This law has two faces. The one we've examined, above, is moderate and hardly contraversial. It's Section 2, the intent of the law, that poses a very real danger to live electronic music. Even though "Findings", as such, aren't laws, judges often rely on them when determining the intent and scope of a law, and other agents of the government can use them to intimidate people.

Firstly, we can see that this act's name is misleading, and that the Senators actually intend it to affect a much wider variety of events:

Sec 2.1) Each year tens of thousands of young people are initiated into the drug culture at `rave' parties or events (all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music).

Sec 2.2) Some raves are held in dance clubs with only a handful of people in attendance. Other raves are held at temporary venues such as warehouses, open fields, or empty buildings, with tens of thousands of people present.

So they want to target not only raves, but also clubs that feature electronic music. It also wouldn't be difficult to imagine zealous drug warriors applying this new law to parties at private residences (an unlisted type of "temporary venue").

It seems like even the most responsible actions by promoters are being used against them:

Sec 2.4) Many rave promoters go to great lengths to try to portray their events as alcohol-free parties that are safe places for young adults to go to dance with friends, and some even go so far as to hire off-duty, uniformed police officers to patrol outside of the venue to give parents the impression that the event is safe.
They actually attempt to demonize promotors for hiring security personnel. At nearly every electronic music event, the promoters responsibly require everyone to be searched for weapons, at the doors. Off-duty policemen and other security personnel are present, inside and out, to ensure everyone's safety. As the saying goes, "No good deed is left unpunished".

The bill finds that drugs and raves are inseperable, and that rave promoters exploit children for profit. The following passages are especially important (emphasis mine):

Sec 2.3) The trafficking and use of `club drugs' [...] is deeply embedded in the rave culture.

Sec 2.5) [...]Raves have become little more than a way to exploit American youth.

Finally, Section 7 gives this law teeth:
Sec 7) There is authorized to be appropriated $5,900,000 to the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice for the hiring of a special agent in each State to serve as a Demand Reduction Coordinator.
So, in each state, we would now have an employee of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, whose sole purpose is to carry out the intent of this law.

Conclusion

Since the entirety of Section 2 defines raves as merely events where promoters exploit and profit from drug using youth, on property they temporarily control, it's easy to see why this law is so frightening to those who would try to organize raves, or other electronic music events which might be mistaken for raves.

Even if promoters are still willing to risk holding an event with electronic music, the Demand Reduction Coordinators (DRCs) have easy ways to shut these events down, without bringing anyone to trial. One of the most difficult parts about organizing any type of sizable music event is renting a space. In any given city, there's only so many places which can hold the amount of people that typically attend electronic music events (sometimes more than 10,000). So, whenever a production company tries to rent a space for an event, all a DRC has to do is fax the owner of the property a copy of the RAVE Act, highlight Section 2, and ask them if they want to risk 20 years in jail. After a few high-profile arrests under this law, nobody will want to risk renting their property. The similar tactics have been used by government officials against promoters in the past, and the same technique could now also be used to shut down electronic music nights at dance clubs.

How much of this will actually happen is anybody's guess. The severity of this law rests largely upon what actions the DRCs take. But, if the history of The War on Drugs is any indication, events with electronic music might become quite rare, due to the chilling effect of this law. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" provided in the 1st ammendment in the Bill of Rights is being violated by this law. Contact your senators, and tell them why they should vote NO on S2633 if you don't want to let this happen.

---

Footnotes

  • The $2,000,000 fine + 20 years in jail figure is derived from this law, under which rave promotors (and possibly other electronic music promotors), as well as the people who rent space for their events would be prosecuted, as per Section 3 of the RAVE Act. The bill itself also tags on a civil penalty of $250,000 or double the gross income, whichever is more.
  • Section 8 also gives the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice a blank check "to educate youth, parents, and other interested adults about the drugs associated with raves". Whether they'll be as honest as harm reduction groups like DanceSafe is doubtful.
  • This version of the article is a re-write of the original, taking into account the helpful feedback of many K5 members. Thank you.
---

This article may be freely distributed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Minor Correction (4.00 / 1) (#218)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:35:56 PM EST

I forgot to insert a hyperlink in the first footnote. It should read as follows:

The $2,000,000 fine + 20 years in jail figure is derived from this law, under which rave promotors (and possibly other electronic music promotors), as well as the people who rent space for their events would be prosecuted, as per Section 3 of the RAVE Act. The bill itself also tags on a civil penalty of $250,000 or double the gross income, whichever is more.

[ Parent ]

No better... (4.00 / 1) (#225)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:07:04 PM EST

They do not "broadly and vaguely define [raves] as events 'featuring loud, pounding dance music.'" Further, this law does not violate the right of people to peaceably assemble.

[ Parent ]
Right in section 2.1 (none / 0) (#230)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:18:07 PM EST

You say:
They do not "broadly and vaguely define [raves] as events 'featuring loud, pounding dance music.'"
Section 2.1 of the RAVE Act says:
Each year tens of thousands of young people are initiated into the drug culture at `rave' parties or events (all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music)
I quote it in the article. The intro is meant to give an overview of the issue at hand. A few paragraphs into my new article, I quote Section 2.1, so the read can see for themselves where I got this quote.

Whether or not the law violates the right of people to peacably assemble is up for debate. I filed my story under Op/ED, and readers understand that my article might contain opinions, such as this.

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it (none / 0) (#235)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:55:24 PM EST

At the very least, you left out the word "typically". At the most, you left out all-night and alcohol free. So if indeed the purpose of this were to ban "raves", and raves were defined as "all-night, alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music," venues could get out of the law by serving alcohol.

Whether or not the law violates the right of people to peacably assemble is up for debate. I filed my story under Op/ED, and readers understand that my article might contain opinions, such as this.

You fail to back up your opinion. The law bans those who "knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." I can't possibly see how such a law could possibly violate the right to peaceably assemble.



[ Parent ]
Well, we evidently disagree... (none / 0) (#237)
by Luminescent on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:09:05 PM EST

...Which is fine. The purpose of articles such as this is to spark discussion. One point of yours with which I disagree:
venues could get out of the law by serving alcohol
Is that why I see so many crack houses selling alcohol, to avoid similar laws which apply to them?

The law, as you pointed out, uses the word "typically", before describing them as, among other things, "alcohol-free". So if an event looks like a rave, and sounds like a rave, but servers beer, well, guess what. It's still a rave, since "alcohol-free" is only typical, not universal of raves.

On to another item (emphasis mine):

I can't possibly see how such a law could possibly violate the right to peaceably assemble.
Allow me to quote myself, from my new article's conclusion:
Since the entirety of Section 2 defines raves as merely events where promoters exploit and profit from drug using youth, on property they temporarily control, it's easy to see why this law is so frightening to those who would try to organize raves, or other electronic music events which might be mistaken for raves.

Even if promoters are still willing to risk holding an event with electronic music, the Demand Reduction Coordinators (DRCs) have easy ways to shut these events down, without bringing anyone to trial. One of the most difficult parts about organizing any type of sizable music event is renting a space. In any given city, there's only so many places which can hold the amount of people that typically attend electronic music events (sometimes more than 10,000). So, whenever a production company tries to rent a space for an event, all a DRC has to do is fax the owner of the property a copy of the RAVE Act, highlight Section 2, and ask them if they want to risk 20 years in jail. After a few high-profile arrests under this law, nobody will want to risk renting their property. The similar tactics have been used by government officials against promoters in the past, and the same technique could now also be used to shut down electronic music nights at dance clubs.

This is, at minimum, a possible outcome. In the next paragraph, I say as much, and also say that everything depends on the DRCs, and what events they decide to target.

[ Parent ]
OK (3.00 / 1) (#241)
by dipierro on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:32:01 PM EST

The law, as you pointed out, uses the word "typically", before describing them as, among other things, "alcohol-free".

No, the findings, uses the word "typically" before "featuring loud, pounding dance music", but after "alcohol-free". According to the "definition", raves are always alcohol-free.

So, whenever a production company tries to rent a space for an event, all a DRC has to do is fax the owner of the property a copy of the RAVE Act, highlight Section 2, and ask them if they want to risk 20 years in jail.

First of all, a law does not violate the constitution merely because of a hypothetical which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the law. Secondly, faxing the owner a copy of the RAVE Act and asking them if they want to risk 20 years in jail does not violate the right to peaceably assemble.

I'm done with this thread. Feel free to reply anyway, if you want.



[ Parent ]
*sigh* you dont understand laws. (5.00 / 1) (#248)
by Work on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:29:51 PM EST

The top part is an explanation as to why they're rewriting the crack house codes.

While this has some legal signifigance should this law ever be challenged (legislative history is a factor), that has little to do with the modification of the crack house codes, which the second part of the law specifies.

The second part of the law, which is the functional part, has no mention of raves or dance music specifically and could be used on any such large drug-addled event such as Country Joe Bob's Jamboree and Crackpipe festival.

[ Parent ]

I have my own thoughts on all this (3.00 / 3) (#216)
by Tim Moore on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 06:24:02 PM EST

But being as long-winded as I am, I won't try to post them here. Please see my diary entry on the subject. In summary, although I oppose the bill, I haven't contacted my senators because I can't come up with a persuasive reason for them to vote no on it.

Persuading a Senator... (none / 0) (#300)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 11:54:41 AM EST

Interesting, and I thought that the reason our represantatives in Congress would vote one way or another is because they represent us. If you, as a constituent, want them to vote no, they should consider that (of course, they must do so in the face of everyone else's opinions, but still...).

At the very least, let them know that one more person wants a "no" vote.

--
$w="q\$x";for($w){s/q/\:/;s/\$/-/;s/x/\)\n/;}print($w)
[ Parent ]

reasons to vote no (none / 0) (#327)
by NFW on Wed Jul 10, 2002 at 09:50:36 AM EST

freedom of association

freedom of expression

innocent until proven guilty

This bill flies in the face of all of the above. I hope that earlier comment about legislation proposed 'just for appearances' was accurate.


--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

Based on this and others (3.71 / 7) (#222)
by C0vardeAn0nim0 on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:00:11 PM EST

like DMCA and some speeches of your president... why don't you ask the congress to change the name of the country ? really. I think "Fascist States of America" is quite adequate. US of A, the land of the freedom and all sorts of other good things is showing itself as a fascist country. sad. plain sad.

http://www.comofazer.net
Yeah, (none / 0) (#226)
by FuriousXGeorge on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:09:53 PM EST

But you would need to find a way to get an patriotic abreviation for the act that would change the name to the fascists states.

Something like, The DEMOCRACY act.  Or The PATRIOT act (ooops, been done already)

--
-- FIELDISM NOW!
[ Parent ]

no what's really sad... (none / 0) (#249)
by Work on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:34:08 PM EST

is people who don't understand laws (or apparently, how to read and comprehend well) and write articles that are simply plain wrong.

[ Parent ]
'E' effect cumulative. . . (3.63 / 11) (#224)
by Fantastic Lad on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:02:34 PM EST

I was going to post this as a response to a sub-thread, but thought it might be of enough interest to warrent a trunk posting. . .

'E' is a really interesting drug.

MDMA, specifically, has been demonstrated to cause damage to seratonin producing cells. Extended use produces an effect similar to that of Post-Polio Syndrome.

That is, Polio attacks the cells of the brain which produce neuro-chemicals responsible for triggering and directing muscle movement. Paralysis is a direct result of Polio sufferers. Children who survived Polio regain the use of their muscles and go on to live normal lives. The problem is that the brain cells killed by Polio don't come back. What happens is that the surviving cells dramatically increase their number of filaments and increase their chemical production to make up for lower levels resulting from the killed cells. This brings the body back up to a normal status.

The difficulty with this, is that after thirty to forty years, these over-worked cells begin to die due to stress, and the polio survivor begins to lose muscle control again. The victim complains of feeling extremely tired and once again begins to lose the inability to move. --Post Polio Syndrome is one disease responsible for symptoms found beneath the umbrella term, "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".

The way this relates to Ecstacy use, is that the Seratonin producing cells affected, when observed under the microscope, can be seen to react to repeated E exposure in exactly the same way as those brain cells affected by the Polio virus. The over-all number of seratonin producing cells drops, and the remaining ones expand their number of filaments and work-load in order to bring the amount of seratonin production up to normal levels.

Now, too few years have yet passed to see whether or not large chunks of the populace will start suffering from the emotional equivalent of Post Polio Syndrome, or Chronic Fatigue, but I think the possibility, based on these observations is worthy of consideration.

--As to one of the more significant mechanics of HOW 'E' causes cell damage. . .

The problem lies in the breakdown of dopamine when it comes into contact with monoamine oxidase (MAO).

MAO is produced by the brain to break down the excess seratonin released by 'E' and delivered by the reuptake transporters. MAO breaks down seratonin harmlessly. But when one does MDMA, there is a huge excess of seratonin to be taken up and broken down. As a result, the reuptake transporters go into overdrive.

When the free seratonin is gone, the reuptake transporters don't shut down immediately. Rather, they get 'confused' and start to react with dopamine.

Now, MAO was not designed to interact with dopamine. Where MAO breaks seartonin down harmlessly, dopamine breaks down into hydrogen peroxide. --The same chemical used to bleach hair and disinfect small wounds. Hydrogen peroxide is very destructive when introduced into the brain, essentially dissolving grey matter the same way it dissolves bacteria in cuts.

These were two of the larger points I discovered while researching Ecstacy. Obviously, I don't recommend Ecstasy use, but certainly don't condemn those who want to experiment. I wouldn't touch the stuff myself, but then I have different priorities in this life.

-Fantasic Lad

How much did you research? (4.00 / 1) (#272)
by Nick Ives on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:43:42 AM EST

If hydrogen peroxide were being produced in quantities sufficient to cause damage, wouldnt that eat holes in your brain? If thats the case, arent you making the argument that the New Scientist did such a good job of debunking?

I just find this whole thing to be slightly suss. MDMA has been around since at least the 60's and I've spoken to people who used it heavily back in the day and their fine. That whole argument about our generation being a giant ecstacy experiment is a load of tosh, it would be trivial to find old users of X and do tests on them. Dopamine reacting with MAO to produce hydrogen peroxide is referred to a lot if you search for it on google, but only either by homegrown "drugs sux0r!" pages or obvious government run sites.

The only thing close to a scientific statement I could find on this was this bit of commentry by Dr Alexander Shulgin. Whilst he may be the auther of (P/T)IHKAL, he's also very old and still has his wits about him. The guy tested all those chemicals on himself and he's still very much alive and well, so whilst I accept that MDMA is probably neurotoxic I find it hard to believe that something as blatently destructive as hydrogen peroxide is produced in quantities sufficient to cause serious functional brain damage.

Not that it bothers me in particular, being such a light user and all, but hey...

--
Nick
nooo, dont crash!

[ Parent ]

Hydrogen Peroxide. . . (4.00 / 1) (#283)
by Fantastic Lad on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 04:15:54 AM EST

Yeah, I've seen those 'blotchy' brain scans as well, and didn't think much of them. As I understand it, the quantities required to dig holes in the brain that large could not come from such small amounts of the chemicals in question. (I'd love to know the actual quantities in miligrams that seratonin and dopamine exists in the brain during various given times. If they are anything like other neurochemicals I know something about, then I would imagine the amounts are quite small.

This does not, however, mean that the damage could not be done, especially if the peroxide is produced in the direct vicinity of the active seratonin producing cells.

As to the reliability of the information I found. . .

Any or all of it could indeed be wrong, but I attempted to minimalize the risk of that by drawing information from uncommon sources which are not designed for normal propaganda disemination. This is one of the reasons I think looking at Polio is so useful, because it is normally not associated in any way with ecstacy. Though, comparing microscopic images of damaged brain cells due to Polio with similar slides taken from an epidemiological study of ecstacy damaged seratonin producing cells, looked practically identical. And this was me looking at two different images from two entirely unrelated stories, so it was my own conclusion drawn, not a spin doctor's. In any case, the damage due to ecstacy and the body's attempts to repair itself on the cellular level, I believe, is quite real.

That being said, however, the information regarding Hydrogen Peroxide being the causitive mechanical agent behind that damage DID come from a less reliable source, and one which I admit to not having bothered to double check. However, I got the information from www.dancesafe.org, an information website specifically maintained by ravers for ravers.

Their information, it seemed, was very well researched and assembled, and based on the bias of the site, it seemed unlikely that they would be willing to promote 'State' ordained propaganda. Indeed, tightly included with their information were steps one might take to counter-act the peroxide effect with other fairly easy to find drugs and vitamins, and the chemical reasons for why these measures would work, and what chemically would happen when those measures were applied.

So those were my sources on this project, and indeed, I could have gone further, but I had satisfied my curiosity at that point, as well as satisfying my instincts regarding what felt 'true', afterwhich my interest in the subject faded. If I come across new information, I would certainly be willing to update or re-vamp my understanding, but until I catch wind of new information, I am satisfied to stop actively digging.

My general conclusions are that ecstasy is probably not so bad a thing if taken only a few times, but that the effects could add up with regular use.

As a side note, one of the interesting things I discovered was that, if the chemistry described in my first post on this subject is correct, that ecstasy used in conjunction with cocain is an incredibly bad mix. --In that cocain causes the release of large quantities of dopamine, which provides fuel for the peroxide mill, and would dramatically increases the rate of damage.

Anyway, I hope this clears up some questions you seemed to have. Do with it what you will, and if you find out something more, please post it!

-Fantastic Lad

[ Parent ]

Coke & pills (3.00 / 1) (#287)
by Nick Ives on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:13:48 AM EST

Yea, I've read dancesafe and I've seen their tips on how to avoid getting dopamine into your seratonin cells and that would all seem to make sense, but that in itself is predicated on the notion of dopamine reacting with MAO to cause hydrogen peroxide. I know dancesafe is a dance music advocacy site and therefore tries to dissemate safe useage advice rather than moralising and preaching abstinance, but it seems possible that they may have seen all the propaganda about dopamine + MAO = hydrogen peroxide and gone "well, if this is true, the best way to reduce harm is..."

Which brings us on to coke and pills. I know lots of people who use the both together, I sometimes even use them both together. I dont really do either of them very much at all, I'm averaging about once a month for pills and once every few months for coke but whenever I have coke pills are useually close at hand. I know people who do coke & pills much more frequently, however, and they seem to be managing fine. They are nice, intelligent people who know their stuff and dont appear to be brain damaged in any way, and I'm guessing they dont feel brain damaged either because otherwise they would stop.

I suppose this is the point where someone with a degree in this should step in and sort us both out because whilst lots of places say its true, I'm having a hard time believing that you can get away with creating lots of hydrogen peroxide in your brain without damage becoming apparent fairly quickly, especially when its in the vicinity of those seratonin cells which seem to have their finger in every part of the brain. The pill's have been dropped, the coke has been snorted, the high's have been done and we've had our fun, but there just doesnt appear to be any brain damage to show for it.

I probably shouldnt complain about that though, it might end up happening...

--
Nick
dry mouth

[ Parent ]

This is the research that isn't being done... (3.00 / 1) (#277)
by curunir on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 03:08:00 AM EST

...because lawmakers panicked and scheduled Ecstacy as schedule I.

The neurotoxicity you describe is most likely real. However, it's possible that it is preventable. Tests on animals indicate that prozac (a.k.a. legal ecstacy) prevents the reuptake transporters from allowing dopamine to bind to the seratonin axon terminal.

Additionally, most users report (albeit anicdotally) that taking 5-HTP (the body's precursor to seratonin) can dramatically reduce the after effects of ecstacy...as in: they can function completely normally the next day.

It's also helpful to take plenty of anti-oxidants (to ensure that you've got your MAOs) and magnesium (to alleviate the clenching of the jaw).

I would like to see a study on ecstacy that uses the various methods that users sometimes use to mitigate the effects of the drug. As someone who has used it a few times, I would like to get an acurate picture of what it's doing to me. Unfortunately, all the legal studies of the drug involve people who take only ecstacy (often in disgustingly high dosages). There is usually no attempt to monitor body temperature (brain damage can occur due when a body overheats...people with a fever experience what can be called brain damage).

I urge anyone considering using ecstacy to read this before using it. It does a good job of presenting complex material in a way that pretty much anyone can understand.

[ Parent ]
Right on a few points, wrong on many.... (none / 0) (#304)
by artsygeek on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 05:03:41 PM EST

You're using polio as a "straw man"..... As for your description of the mechanism...You're pretty much on-target...

But also the description of chronic fatigue is rather bizarre, but it'd take way too much time, far too much bandwidth, and frankly I don't care enough to go THAT far off-topic to express how off-target connecting CFS and MDMA use is (But, i'll give you a hint....look more towards the drug NMDA and its effects, also cross-reference some stuff about Gulf War Syndrome and diet sodas, and there, the answer shall lie).

Finally, you fail to mention the fact that it essentially "drains" seratonin levels, causing depression. Which means that seratonin precursors such as 5-HTP are a good idea to take before and after use.

[ Parent ]

Like breathing. . . (5.00 / 1) (#308)
by Fantastic Lad on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 08:38:44 PM EST

Are you talking about Aspartame and the formaldehyde effect?

Please!!! Use the bandwidth. I'd really be interested in knowing what you know regarding this. (Not looking to argue. Just fascinated.)

I've written thousands upon thousands of words into the internet ether in my attempts to share what I've learned on a multitude of subjects. Nothing makes me happier when people take the time to correct me on off-points, or send new and useful information my way. I live to build and share knowledge! It's like breathing.

-Fantastic Lad

[ Parent ]

Well, I'm talking about something similar... (none / 0) (#321)
by artsygeek on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 04:29:30 PM EST

Aspartame seems also to, according to some chemists become NMDA when exposed to VERY HIGH temperatures.....It's believed in some circles that due to the fact that some of the victims of Gulf War Syndrome reported drinking some diet sodas, that perhaps what may have happened was a bizarre effect due to the fact that these drinks were subjected to desert temperatures, combined with the "greenhousing" of container crates and vehicle cargo compartments, causing the Aspartame to convert into NMDA, which has blamed for chronic-fatigue-like effects and Olney's lesions in a group of kids in California clubs.

It may have been a "one-in-a-million" scenario of a chemical reaction, a lot like the Gloria Ramirez ("Fume Lady) case. Of course the veracity of some of the theories in this particular case is dubious, at best, but it's the best example of freaky chemistry happening in a "one in a million" scenario.

[ Parent ]

Aspartame. . . (none / 0) (#324)
by Fantastic Lad on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 07:48:03 PM EST

No kidding!

I met a girl suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, and her symptoms were body pains and severe allergies and head aches. She looked pretty miserable. I was under the impression that syndrome was the result of a combination of things; exposure to radio-active rounds, anti-nerve gas and various anti-chem warfare agents. Though, Aspartame breaking down under high-heat conditions in cargo containers and desert storage environments makes an awful lot of sense as well.

Now, I've read differing reports regarding the temperature at which Aspartame begins to break down; but typically they all, (ahm) boil down to, "It starts breaking down immediately once placed in solution, and heat only speeds up the inevitable process; it's why Pepsi sells bottles with expiration dates on them,"

The problem is, the only data I could find on-line, while there was a lot of it, was light on actual hard epidemilogical study, and heavy on hysteria. I contacted Betty Martini, one of the better known muck-rakers regarding Aspartame and Monsanto, asking to forward me some of the many white papers and studies she constantly referred to in her web pages.

Unfortunately, while energetic, Mrs. Martini didn't seem to understand why I would want to look at such studies for myself instead of relying solely on the veritable mountain of doctor's testimony included on her website, which granted, was both damning and overwhelming. Still, I was insistent. She did tell me that she and a group of volunteers was in the process of scanning and OCRing these studies in order to prepare for a large court battle she was key in organizing, and so I offered my services in this regard. She never got back to me. Too bad. Then life took me away from this area of interest. That was about eight months ago.

Where did you get your information regarding the temperatures at which Aspartame begins to break down? I'd love to see some actual hard info!

Thanks!

-Fantastic Lad

[ Parent ]

The info I got came from.... (none / 0) (#332)
by artsygeek on Thu Jul 11, 2002 at 07:36:12 PM EST

A combo of sources... I think I remember seeing something about NMDA (the drug, not Aspartame, which also is sometimes referred to as NMDA) in a Pharmacology textbook....Then I started scouring the med and sci journal search engines on the drug NMDA....and bumped into some stuff on gulf war syndrome and broken down aspartame....and gulf war syndrome's incredible similarity to these types of disorders....

Although, I fear that "Gulf War Syndrome" may be a little more nebulous, and have more causes than just broken down aspartame, it may also be caused by depleted uranium particles in the air in some patients, caused by burning chemical weapons in otehrs, and yet in others the broken down Aspartame....

[ Parent ]

Loophole? (4.30 / 10) (#231)
by flieghund on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 07:23:37 PM EST

all-night, alcohol-free dance parties
So serve alcohol. "Why no, officer, we're not violating the RAVE Act. See, we've got these kegs right here..."

Using a Macintosh is like picking your nose: everyone likes to do it, but no one will admit to it.
what is "dance" music? (3.00 / 2) (#244)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:06:38 PM EST

i mean...i could dance to pink floyd's 'one of these days' mabye...or hell even beethoven's fur elise if i really wanted to... what about ballet?

and as for loud pounding...the rolling stones are on tour or will be soon..i wonder how they will fare...

i see this is a crackdown on live performing artists.
I was going to tour Down there next summer...now i'm not sure if i want to try that...
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
another bill in California (4.80 / 5) (#245)
by startled on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:16:32 PM EST

Fucking over the non-voting kids has always been a proud tradition, but in few locations is it done to the extent it is in California. After repeated attempts to eliminate nightlife in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, they've finally decided to go to the state level and resolve this once and for all.

AB1941 DOES specifically refer to a specific type of music. It also holds promoters liable for drug use at the party, and forces them to evict organizations like DanceSafe. It's yet another bill that'll do more harm than good, but of course passed the assembly 79-0. There's a good analysis of it at SFLNC's site.

There are a couple of bills that this article didn't mention, but you can check them out at em:def.

As usual, it's quite important to get out and vote, but the youth vote pales in comparison to the senior vote, so I don't know that any sort of "get out the vote" campaign would help with these types of bills. Right now, the only thing leaving us any rights is the Constitution, and over the past year both the state and federal levels have been intent on trampling the hell out of it.

Interesting Story... (4.66 / 9) (#250)
by jschmerge on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:35:17 PM EST

For anyone interested, the founder of Ultraworld Productions (a 'rave' promoter) from the Baltimore/D.C. area has an interesting story about his experience with drugs, throwing parties, and dealing with rather hard-headed cops. It's a bit of a long read, but for those of you who do not know what to think of raves, or have formed your opinions of them without ever having seen first-hand exactly what occurs at a rave, it's definitely worth the read.

+5... (none / 0) (#258)
by Skywise on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 12:04:18 AM EST

To the man who posts a good article.

Although I think there's a bit more to Galbreath's reason for a vendetta than just a "permit" discussion.

(Maybe he was expecting kickbacks?)

[ Parent ]

Glad Someone Followed the Link (none / 0) (#313)
by jschmerge on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 12:25:33 AM EST

Subject says it all

[ Parent ]
Great read... (none / 0) (#329)
by aluminumaloi on Wed Jul 10, 2002 at 07:22:06 PM EST

Ritual was, I think, the best party I've ever been too. I hadn't kept up with these guys since then (moving to the other side of the country makes it a tad difficult), and didn't know about their troubles until I read this. I was very happy when I got to the end of it to hear things have gotten better.

Thanks for the great read!

[ Parent ]

aww jeez... (4.00 / 2) (#251)
by Matt Oneiros on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:49:57 PM EST

I BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL STOP THE USE OF EXTACY, AND STOP THE EVENT KNOWN AS A "RAVE" ...

just like alcohol's prohibition and associated laws stopped the event know as a speakeasy.

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real

For those of you that read the article (4.00 / 3) (#259)
by sobcek on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 12:32:26 AM EST

you may have noticed the word "intentionally". So, yes, if you are holding a rave intent on selling X, etc. to the masses, then you are violating the law. (Not that this is a surprise, really) However, if you are renting the building to someone, and you have no intent, the law is not clear.

Read It Again (none / 0) (#322)
by Falling uP on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 04:54:39 PM EST

It says "Intentionally or not" the intention of the promoter is completely out of question, the only question a law-officer needs to answer is "does this event have electronic music" from there the intent of the promoter to sell or profit from drug-use is assumed.

[ Parent ]
oops, well i was a little mistaken (none / 0) (#323)
by Falling uP on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 05:00:31 PM EST

it only says "knowingly and intentionally" but how this could be interpreted by law-officers is up to speculation. the act does seem to define the very event itself as being linked to drug-use and therefore sets its aim on all events that have electro music w/o regard to how the event is carried on. this law might make it past congress but it could never stand up to a competent constitutional challenge in a court of law.

[ Parent ]
Missing the concept entirely! (4.00 / 4) (#269)
by mecredis on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:04:54 AM EST

However compelling this article, and comment may seem it is in fact, in all probability, utterly misleading. Though this bill was introduced to the senate floor, and probably exists somewhere in writing- that is as far as it will ever get-which is exactly what the Senator wants. Luminescent, the author of the post- has mistakenly identified this bill as a legitimate piece of legislature something with a huge backing, that stands as an active threat to our freedoms- it is however, nothing more than a perfect example of a common technique used by senators all the time- another example can be found in the now famous Kentucky legislature that proposed funding for casino- -riverboat-destroying submarines. Senators knowingly present such bills as the RAVE act, at such times when very few members of the senate (or house) are actually in attendance, with no hope of actually passing the bill but simply rather to be able to get it on their congressional record so in a decade when they are re-running for office they can casually refer to a plan that would (in this case) help America's teens become less dependant on ecstasy, in affect making a benign statement out of the original bill (which now ten years later no one remembers the details of and or cares about) as to only help them in their current campaign. Such bills are common place in both the senate and the house, and can seem both outrageous and even comical (see the acronym for RAVE !) to the unbeknownst witness.

I'd like to believe that but (none / 0) (#274)
by cicero on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:46:14 AM EST

can you cite anything backing up your statements?


--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
[ Parent ]
Kentucky Bill (none / 0) (#331)
by mecredis on Thu Jul 11, 2002 at 12:40:15 AM EST

Click here for the Kentucky Bill.

State of Kentucky legislative bill HR256: Encourage the purchase of a submarine to patrol the waters of the Commonwealth and search and destroy all casino riverboats. Yeah, insane, but some politician obviously wanted to speak out against casino river boats. Why not submit a bill to add to your credibility in the next election?

[ Parent ]
Perhaps a bit alarmist... (none / 0) (#330)
by qon on Thu Jul 11, 2002 at 12:17:45 AM EST

...and then again, perhaps not. Time and time again I am disgusted by Congressional attempts to destroy freedom. Even if this act never becomes law, it gives me the screaming heebie jeebies to know that it might. And I don't even go to raves!

I look forward to the day when lawmakers focus on real problems, such as health care, and let go of quixotic illiberal faux-moral escapades, such as attacking recreational drug use.

q

Banning Good For The Underground? (5.00 / 1) (#335)
by meehawl on Mon Jul 15, 2002 at 08:47:11 PM EST

Yawn. You know, the Brits tried something similar under the last right-wing government there, the Criminal Justice Act, that basically codified and banned "raves": defined as a gathering of 100+ people, at which amplified music ('wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats'[!) is played.

This bill provoked a huge outcry and a really fun and scary riot in Central London (the opening riot scenes in the Human Traffic movie). It's less obvious effect was to mutate raves indoor into huge, well-managed clubs. Economies of scale and homogenisation of product led to the development of the UK's epic trance sound (Oakenfold, BT, Sasha/Digweed, etc) and their virtual hegemony over modern mass-scale dance music. The dance culture become so commercialised, monetised, and pervasive that recently the UK government decriminalised marijuana and relaxed ecstasy's scheduling.

So this RAVE Act will hardly lead to the death of dance culture in the US -- more likely than not it will provoke a reaction and Darwinian selection that will create stronger, fitter pomoters and dance institutions. These kinds of crude social engineering attempts rarely work out as thjeir designers intend. Think of how the Volstead Act leds to the supremacy of the Mafia and American cocktail, or how the Catholic Church's late-medieval cosanguinity decrees weakened kinship arrangements and led to the strengthening of the intermediary merchant class and the emergence of early capitalism.

Mike Rogers www.meehawl.com
RAVE Act: RIP Live Electronic Music | 333 comments (285 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!