TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- L. A. Times -> Ecstasy overdoses at L.A. New Year's Eve rave that left one dead, 18 h
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by system-7 +18 plus should be the requirement for all massives.

ITA

quote:

Originally posted by system-7 +18 plus should be the requirement for all massives.

I don't quite understand the 18+ limit. If you are going to make massives 18+ you might as well make them 21+ to prevent 18-20 year olds drinking alcohol illegally.

In my experience, people who are concerned with ecstasy use at raves/clubs usually aren't concerned with underage drinking, likely because alcohol can be purchased legally (although not by people under 21 of course) and it is more socially acceptable. Both are abused at raves and clubs, but alcohol causes way more fights. I would rather be surrounded by 10 people who are rolling than 10 drunks.

(I'm not saying you are OK with underage drinking... these are just some of my thoughts on the matter.)

Apeattack, i like your point of view and you are really good with words. Please write to the newspapers

quote:

Originally posted by Tosh Apeattack, i like your point of view and you are really good with words. Please write to the newspapers

On the few occasions I have written to a newspaper nothing came from it. Writing would make me feel better, but the words likely will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes?).

quote:

Originally posted by Apeattack I don't quite understand the 18+ limit.

It's easy to understand. When 15 year old girls wear lingerie, take 'ecstasy' (usually a mix of mdma, meth and who knows what else), act like porn stars, let strangers grind on them, etc, it's a problem. At least when it's 18+ everyone there is an adult.

.

quote:

Originally posted by mattW It's easy to understand. When 15 year old girls wear lingerie, take 'ecstasy' (usually a mix of mdma, meth and who knows what else), act like porn stars, let strangers grind on them, etc, it's a problem. At least when it's 18+ everyone there is an adult. .

Stop killing the fun Matt, rave isn't much of a rave without those kids and toddlers in lingerie... we need them and all those kandi kids sitting on the floor doing lightshows... besides, that's what rave is all about, no?

quote:

Originally posted by mattW It's easy to understand. When 15 year old girls wear lingerie, take 'ecstasy' (usually a mix of mdma, meth and who knows what else), act like porn stars, let strangers grind on them, etc, it's a problem. At least when it's 18+ everyone there is an adult.

The concept that a person becomes an adult after 18 years is completely culturally defined. I recognize that it 'feels' worse to see a 15 year old doing those things versus an 18 year old because I grew up in the US too, but I wanted to avoid the issues that naturally arise when using the word 'adult' by focusing only on the law regarding the use of drugs/alcohol. The law states that anyone under 21 cannot drink alcohol, but 18-20 year olds at a 18+ massive will just as much access to alcohol as at an all ages massive.

My point is that setting the age limit of massives at 18+ (vs all ages) will have some impact on overall illegal drug use because people in the 17- age group will not be in attendance (this assumes most people in the 17- age group will use drugs/alcohol). However, setting the bar at 18+ probably will have little impact on illegal drug/alcohol use for those in the 18-20 age group.

Setting the age limit at 21+ will greatly limit overall illegal drug use because everyone can drink legally, although from my experience 21+ folks at a 21+ event likely will be consuming just as much drugs/alcohol as if they were at an all ages massive. I went to Giant Bonaventure (21+) for NYE and most of these 'adults' were drunk or rolling. The only difference between a massive like TAO and the Giant event is that attendees at the Giant event were more dressed up, on average.

If you want to eliminate the greatest amount of illegal drug use, which includes underage drinking, make the massives 21+, not 18+. Personally, I am a bit torn about whether to make massives all ages or 21+ for reasons discussed ad nauseum in various threads on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by able.h Stop killing the fun Matt, rave isn't much of a rave without those kids and toddlers in lingerie... we need them and all those kandi kids sitting on the floor doing lightshows... besides, that's what rave is all about, no?

...lol, better?

Whether or not being 18 arbitrarily makes you an adult, it is still the legal age of when an American becomes an adult. 16 year olds can't even make medical decisions without parental consent. 18+ just makes the most sense. 21+ would be nice, but you don't need alcohol or drugs to enjoy the music. If an adult (18+) wants to attend the show, they should be allowed to.

quote:

Originally posted by trancension Whether or not being 18 arbitrarily makes you an adult, it is still the legal age of when an American becomes an adult. 16 year olds can't even make medical decisions without parental consent.

Yes, in this country we set 18 as the age at which you are considered an 'adult.' You can join the military, vote, etc... once you turn 18. But what really matters for the purposes of this discussion is that you cannot consume alcohol legally until you are 21. Just being an adult does not entitle you to the right to drink alcohol (something I disagree with, but hey, it's the law).

When people state that massives should be 18+ it often is implied that people younger than that are always drugged out (probably true, but so are the adults) and setting the bar at 18 is one way of getting rid of a lot of the illegal drug use. To me, it is inconsistent for these people to be ok with 18+ massives (where 18-20 year olds likely will be consuming alcohol illegally) but not all age massives.

If the major concern is that 17- kids are being exposed to the drug/alcohol/provocative dress culture of massives, then that is a good reason to set the bar at 18+. That is why we have movie ratings. But if the concern is specifically over drug abuse by minors, which I feel is often the case in these discussions (people always hatin' on the Daniel Kandi kids and light shows), then setting the bar at 21+ is more consistent.

quote:

21+ would be nice, but you don't need alcohol or drugs to enjoy the music. If an adult (18+) wants to attend the show, they should be allowed to.

You could make the argument that a 17 year old should be allowed to attend the massive as long as he doesn't do drugs/alcohol. I imagine you would agree with this but still are in favor of setting the bar at 18+ because realistically we know the ratio of drunk/high people to sober people is like 10:1. It is rare for someone to go a massive entirely sober, at least in my experience. Just look at the EDC thread where people got quite upset at the (now repealed) 7 drink limit for VIPs.

An afterthought...
You are saying once we turn 18 we are designated adults by the state and should be allowed to attend any event we wish. But why not make all clubs 18+? Because club owners know if undercover cops find underage drinking they will be fined or shut down. The only reason massive promoters do not really care about underage drinking or drug use is because they know they will not get shut down. At 1am on the Coliseum floor during EDC any undercover cop will have 10 people within arms reach who are high. If cops start handing out massive fines for every person who is high or drinking illegally I imagine these events would quickly become 21+.

quote:

Originally posted by mattW ...lol, better?

I can't see the image

I tried to copy/paste the link into another tab and no luck either

Clubs make most of their money on alcohol sales. You're generally suppose to drink and socialize at a club/bar. You don't have to obviously, but that is a club's purpose. Drinking, dancing, socializing, etc. The music is their to complement that other stuff. There is also very limited capacity in clubs, so the clubs want most of their patrons in there buying alcohol. Having a bunch of people who can't buy alcohol in there, while potentially forcing people who can buy it to stay in line outside is bad for business.

Events like Ultra, TAO, etc. are meant for the music, dancing and socializing. At events like these, the alcohol (and drugs) are meant to complement the other stuff.

I said the reason <17 year olds shouldn't be at places like this, is because they can't go out past midnight. They can't make legal decisions for themselves. They can't make medical decisions. They're children. Is there an actual difference between a 16y/o and 19y/o in terms of maturity and responsibility, probably not. Maybe in some instances? But that 19 year old can consent to sex, he can smoke cigarettes, he can actually tell a doctor what to do to himself. He can leave the event at 5am without breaking curfew.

All events should be 18+. If they want to make them 21+, I don't care. It doesn't affect me. No reason little high school kids should be there though.

quote:

Originally posted by Apeattack I can't see the image I tried to copy/paste the link into another tab and no luck either

Better. A truer poster has never been created.

There probably isn't much more that can be said on this subject that already hasn't been said.

quote:

Originally posted by trancension Clubs make most of their money on alcohol sales. You're generally suppose to drink and socialize at a club/bar. You don't have to obviously, but that is a club's purpose. Drinking, dancing, socializing, etc. The music is their to complement that other stuff. There is also very limited capacity in clubs, so the clubs want most of their patrons in there buying alcohol. Having a bunch of people who can't buy alcohol in there, while potentially forcing people who can buy it to stay in line outside is bad for business. Events like Ultra, TAO, etc. are meant for the music, dancing and socializing. At events like these, the alcohol (and drugs) are meant to complement the other stuff.

I see clubs and raves as being very similar. Maybe your experiences with clubs and raves are significantly different than mine.

In my experience, most people go to both places for (1) the music and dancing, (2) the alcohol/drugs, (3) to socialize. These reasons all compliment each other. Alcohol/drugs make people who like music and dancing more social.

I do not know the business behind clubs and raves very well, so I will take your word that a higher percentage of a club's revenue is from alcohol sales compared to raves. But people go to both these types of events for very similar reasons regardless of the business model.

I was wondering if anyone else observed this, the use of extacy has gone down quite a bit from the time when Trance music was the Kingpin of clubs. Clearly, the amount of glowsticks and lightshows I see at clubs has severly gone down, even the other paraphenelia involved like those minty nose things, folks hugging their water bottles etc has diminished. And from an observation standpoint, the amount of people who seem to be rolling seems to have gone down, less puddles circles, and massage parlors, especially as the patron is higher in age. Sure at massives were its mostly kids, I imagine people are still in the "discovering" extacy phase, so there might be higher use at massives per capita than at clubs.

If what i'm seeing is fairly accurate...I think there was an extacy phase to edm music and clubs, and that has been superceded by alcohol and more genuine interests have come forefront: the music and socializing. Aided by club demographics widening furthur into the mainstream, as event marketing through the internet reaches more people and electronic music in general interests a larger pool of people. Resulting in the underground nature that supported drug use like extacy has been pushed into the dark a bit, and those people come out less, giving more room for drinkers, socalisers and casuals.

I think clubs and the culture involved is in a favorable state and headed in a good direction overall. And this not me being a pretentious optimist, its based on observation and reasoning, otherwise its easy to be cynical.

Ecstasy use was on the decline from the late 90's until recently, but it is picking back up. The anti-ecstasy campaign hasn't exactly been in effect for today's generation of ravers, and so they are raving on E again. Government has been putting a lot of effort into campaigning against Meth/Heroin, and so ecstasy has gotten less attention. Add in the fact that since its production has honestly gotten more stable and controlled and subsequently safer, today's 18-30 year olds just don't fear using ecstasy like they did 5-15 years ago.

quote:

Ecstasy use in Los Angeles County was on the upswing between 2005 and 2009. According to the CDC, one drug-reporting system said that of L.A. County residents entering a drug-treatment program, the number who listed Ecstasy as their drug of choice jumped from 0.22 to 1.65 for every 100,000 residents, a 650% increase. The CDC report said a recent national survey of teenagers showed a rise in Ecstasy use in 2009 compared with 2008 and a decrease in the perception of risk from the drug. In line with the increase of the use of Ecstasy in Los Angeles County, the CDC report called the use of the drug a �possible ongoing and underreported public health problem.�

This is very accurate, except for it being a public health problem. Ecstasy is a very safe drug if the person is in good health and can trust the source they got it from. Other underlying health concerns and mixing (alcohol, other drugs) are usually what results in bad ecstasy experiences. Dehydration or over hydration are also concerns still of course.

Ecstasy use will most likely see a rise in use for quite some time as long as the perception of it being a relatively harmless drug. The candy heads are in full swing lately, surprised anyone would think E use has declined the last few years. It has definitely picked back up.

quote:

Originally posted by Apeattack There probably isn't much more that can be said on this subject that already hasn't been said. I see clubs and raves as being very similar. Maybe your experiences with clubs and raves are significantly different than mine. In my experience, most people go to both places for (1) the music and dancing, (2) the alcohol/drugs, (3) to socialize. These reasons all compliment each other. Alcohol/drugs make people who like music and dancing more social. I do not know the business behind clubs and raves very well, so I will take your word that a higher percentage of a club's revenue is from alcohol sales compared to raves. But people go to both these types of events for very similar reasons regardless of the business model.

I'm not talking about raves. I'm talking about "events" -- TAO and Trance Energy and Ultra and similar events are not raves. EDM + venue != rave. This is just my opinion, I might be in the minority in this thinking. A rave is an underground party, that doesn't have 20 police officers and 10 ambulances on stand by. Raves are fueled by drug use. Events like TAO/Ultra/TE/etc. have security who might do drug searches from time to time. Raves do not. Raves in my experience do not have full stocked bars either. Raves don't care how old the attendees are for the most part.

I definitely feel most people go to events like TAO/Ultra/etc. for the music and socializing. People would go to them even if there was a guarantee they could not do drugs or alcohol (including pre-gaming).

Clubs on the other hand? I don't think so. Unless it's a special DJ, a club is only going to attract people because they can drink there.

Raves...in my experience people don't drink at raves. At least 4/5 people are on some form of drug, the other 1/5 actually love the experience for what it is and/or are the "babysitters" for their friends rolling balls.

quote:

Originally posted by trancension Ecstasy use was on the decline from the late 90's until recently, but it is picking back up. The anti-ecstasy campaign hasn't exactly been in effect for today's generation of ravers, and so they are raving on E again. Government has been putting a lot of effort into campaigning against Meth/Heroin, and so ecstasy has gotten less attention. Add in the fact that since its production has honestly gotten more stable and controlled and subsequently safer, today's 18-30 year olds just don't fear using ecstasy like they did 5-15 years ago. This is very accurate, except for it being a public health problem. Ecstasy is a very safe drug if the person is in good health and can trust the source they got it from. Other underlying health concerns and mixing (alcohol, other drugs) are usually what results in bad ecstasy experiences. Dehydration or over hydration are also concerns still of course. Ecstasy use will most likely see a rise in use for quite some time as long as the perception of it being a relatively harmless drug. The candy heads are in full swing lately, surprised anyone would think E use has declined the last few years. It has definitely picked back up.

Thanks for finding and sharing that quote, tbh i'm not a fan of these reports, there is usually politics and pandering involved, they are hard to trust. I was interested in observance at clubs. Does the report illustrate the amount of use at clubs? Maybe there has been growth in certain demographics due to the accessibility that the younger generation has in the various avenues they can come in contact or use xtc. I'm not sure you can say that about clubs with an older/experienced demographic.

The reason being that xtc concentrates on the users emotions,and the user typically has a connection to a certain time or place while using. XTC is a social atmosphere dependent drug, compared to the drugs people can do at home. So if the social aspects take a hit or change, a bad experience in an uncontrolled environment, or changes in the social environment (i.e. breaking off a relationship with another user), it would make sense that users quit use, or move on to something else due to the experiences, changes in environment/atmosphere. Also XTC has a steady rise in tolerence from the user, so over time it makes less sense for them to keep using something they have built a tolerance to, in which the earlier experiences cannot be replicated. So you have this phase based use by the average user (with exceptions of course), instead of a sustainable prolonged use that other drugs allow users.

there was an la times guy last night at avalon..taking photos and videos too....

quote:

Originally posted by trancension I'm not talking about raves. I'm talking about "events" -- TAO and Trance Energy and Ultra and similar events are not raves. EDM + venue != rave. This is just my opinion, I might be in the minority in this thinking. A rave is an underground party, that doesn't have 20 police officers and 10 ambulances on stand by. Raves are fueled by drug use. Events like TAO/Ultra/TE/etc. have security who might do drug searches from time to time. Raves do not. Raves in my experience do not have full stocked bars either. Raves don't care how old the attendees are for the most part. ... Raves...in my experience people don't drink at raves. At least 4/5 people are on some form of drug, the other 1/5 actually love the experience for what it is and/or are the "babysitters" for their friends rolling balls.

Among my friends we use the words 'massives' and 'raves' interchangeably. Perhaps this is a sign that 'raves' have gone from underground events to big events that are in a 'controlled' environment.

All my comments above are regarding 'massives' (or 'events' as you call them).

quote:

Originally posted by KarenLuvs2Party there was an la times guy last night at avalon..taking photos and videos too....

I noticed that too...they have been recently "working" with the Avalon. Well, them and some other select clubs in the area.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.