Okay, this is kinda a long article, so I'll just post the link.

http://www.citypages.com/...e10650.asp

It's a story from one of Minneapolis' weekly papers about Congress's RAVE act, which could potentially heavily fine or shut down about every dance club in America.



What do you think?

carrie we do not think here, we just follow Prince blindly

I think it's ridiculous... the act is flawed on many levels before it even starts. Heavy-handed tactics never work, and trying to stop or inhibit drug use by attempting to shut down raves or dance clubs is laughable... by enforcing this they'll just disperse what they see as the problem and push it further underground anyhow.

Targeting rave and dance culture is a completely prejudiced approach... and while highlighting the dangers of club drugs is not a bad thing, let's not forget you have more chance of dying on a golf course than you do from ecstasy... that doesn't mean that club drugs are safe... they aren't by any means... but the point is there are a lot more people dying from the so called legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco than from ecstasy or amphetines etc... surely they should be focusing more on that and harm reduction in those areas...

It won't be enforced though... there's no way they could draw the line and distinguish what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, there are too many loopholes...

Such an act would do more harm than good... sheeesh... can't even dance anymore without people's preconceived assumptions flying all over the place!
[This message was edited Mon Aug 26 21:03:59 PDT 2002 by Diva]

I dont like techno
I dont like new-wave
I dont like television...

ban theme...they perpetuate a tacky lifestyle with horrible clothes...anyone for outlawing that is a-okay with me.


but, on a serious note...back in the early 90s..(you know, before *raves* became trendy)..a friend of mine pointed out that he went to a show and witnessed parents/kids bragging about their lil baby being fried on E...

not a good thing...and sense thats the *cool* thing about these functions, that underage kids can go...i say a law regulating them is in order. theres a reason that 18 year olds cant go into a bar folks...

SkletonKee said:

The point is though that these types of drugs are no longer restricted to raves and clubs... people take them in a variety of settings, including their bedrooms... should we try outlaw and ban those under 18 from schools too... seeing as that's where much of the drug trade takes place anyway.

Raves aren't the cause of people taking drugs... there may be a correlation between going to raves and taking drugs, but as we all should know, correlation does not mean causation. It's like that gateway hypothesis... that those who smoke marijunana are more likely to try heroin than those who haven't smoked marijuana... , well that might be true... but that doesn't mean that marijuana causes someone to take heroin... by the same logic most heroin users have had milk before they tried heroin... is milk the cause of them taking heroin? Of course not... the same is true of raves.. this is guilt by association.. and it's completely presumptuous...

And as I said, people are taking these drugs in a variety of settings, not just raves and clubs... banning people under 18 from attending these clubs and dance parties is by no means going to stop them from taking drugs if that's what they want to do... it all comes down to the inelasticity of demand... if they want it, they'll find a way to get it, with or without raves.

SkletonKee said:

Hmmm... what kind of law do you think needs to be enacted? I mean, E and other "rave drugs" are already illegal. Promoters already need to get permits to throw raves in most places--in fact, our mayor used the city's dance permit ordinance to destroy our local scene (dance permits in this city are only good until 2 a.m.). Venues are subject to fire and other safety codes. Curfew laws often prohibit minors from attending a rave past a certain time.

I guess it just seems to me that existing laws are sufficient--and in some cases, overly restrictive (such as our 2 a.m. cutoff for dance permits). Maybe the problem is insufficient enforcement of the laws that we already have.

Thanks for the replies! Some very valid points!

To me, this just screams of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, what next? Prosecuting a truck stop for serving methed-out truck drivers, or an inner city gas station when junkies get caught shooting up in the bathroom? America's "war on drugs" has always been flawed, for so many reasons and in so many ways. This just goes that many more steps over the line.

BTW- Even if you don't like techno, or aren't into "the scene," this would affect nearly every live music venue, since so many host a plethora of differently themed events.
[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 15:54:34 PDT 2002 by CarrieMpls]

YAY LAW!!!

POOK HATE RAVE ANYWAY

BAN THE ALBUM!

AND HELLO TO MATT

POOK THOUGH MATT WAS BEN

[This message was edited Tue Aug 27 15:57:28 PDT 2002 by POOK]

Ooooh,
I'm having flashbacks to 1988
Aciiied!

POOK said:

Even a harmless little song like Tangerine?

We had a discussion about this on another board.

The consensus was, and I agree, that these 'Rave laws' are both prejudical and stereotypical. They are going about this completely the wrong way.

E and other "rave drugs" are everywhere now, not just at raves.

Wouldn't a good alternative be to allow drug-free raves to give kids something to do and keep them off the streets?

live4lovesexy said:

How would one throw a "drug-free rave"? At least around here, most rave promoters do not want drugs at their events. They take steps to keep them out, such as door searches (which, admittedly, really don't work) and having security personnel (often off-duty law enforcement officers) present. But it's inevitable that some patrons will find a way to get drugs inside, and even the best security measures won't stop someone from popping a pill outside the party and then going in.

matt said:

noo way...are u sure about that? the promoters dont want drugs? seriously? i mean, i know some promoters here in the bay area...i also know some people who work at some of the most famous clubs in SF (and the country for that matter) and they all fully understand that drugs are a major part of the appeal of these events..they all give cosmetic solutions so that it appears as if they are concerned...but deep down they understand without the drugs..there would be no business...

thats why I say we should seriously consider some type of bans on these puppies...could it be considered unfair? sure...but then, not allowing people to drink alcohol in public parks is unfair too..just because a few people screwed it up..soo to protect the masses, here in Ca its illegal.

and further, clubs that are 18 and over have major major security patrols, inside and outside the venue...a lot of these places are closed down because of alcohol or drug violations..shouldnt raves be held to those same standards? yet, you dont have Police and competent security parading around Raves like you do 18 and over bars... why? because these promoters cant be trusted to self-police..they know the drugs create the atmosphere...just like the people i know who have admitted such...

Hey Daddy you know it's not nice to lie to people if you're not on the computer you're watching the tv and I hope your choice of usic change soon because you will have to dance with me. :laughing:

SkletonKee said:

At one time (circa 1999-2000), things seemed that way. Despite the usual "no drugs" line on the flyers and cursory door searches, most promoters appeared to have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude toward drugs. (GHB was the exception, due to a series of overdoses.)

But things have been different ever since the authorities started attacking raves. As best I can tell, the promoters who are still operating genuinely do not want drugs at their events because it could mean serious trouble for them.

After the crackdown started last year, I attended a meeting with most of the local promoters, and one of them told us that a DEA agent (i.e., the feds) got into one of her parties. The agent approached her and said something like, "If we find even one pill here, this party is getting shut down and you're getting arrested."

Granted, I'm just talking about our local scene. I'm sure there are other places where promoters are still tacitly condoning drug use.



But again, what kind of laws would you suggest? A ban on events open to the public that feature electronic music? That's even worse than unfair--it sounds unconstitutional.



Up until the crackdown, we had police officers providing security at our parties. However, the mayor has ordered the city police department not to work security at raves, and the county sheriff has issued the same order to his deputies.

It's funny... after a large event was busted, the mayor held a press conference in the parking lot where he said, among other things:

1) Raves are dangerous.

2) Local law enforcement officers have been ordered not to work at these events.

I don't get it. Raves are dangerous, so the mayor will make them safer by deterring promoters from having proper security?

Even more irony was provided by another press conference later that month, when the mayor announced that he wanted to make Indianapolis a mecca for the arts. I guess art is only okay here if it's a type of art approved by the mayor.

Needless to say, I hope this guy gets voted out of office next year.