|
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
i have mixed feelings about the rave acts. I absolutely love clubs and raves around my area (southern california). I've seen the local talent as well as the great Sasha and Digweed, superb shows. On one side, i do agree that there is massive drug use in these events. If u live in america, u must abide by the rules and not blame the government because "they don't let us use drugs", which has been the only reason justified by chemical using clubbbers/ravers.
I have never used drugs, yet my freedom to attend clubs/raves is now washed away because people feel the club/rave scene cannot go on without drugs, which is absolutley ridiculous and unfair. If i can have a blast and an absolutely euphoric exerience without drugs, so can everyone else. If u need to do drugs to have a good time, u are obviously not going for the music or the celebrity of DJs.
The RAVE act is soley based on the use of drugs. It's not about congestion of traffic, it's not about the noise level, it's not about overpopulated clubs with no fire hazards, etc. It's the drugs. We get rid of the drugs, we get our freedom to assemble in recreation safely and without harassement.
on the other hand, i feel that RAVE is a bit too broad and has an absolutely tryanic (sp?) way of stopping clubs and raves. They want to shut down gatherings, that's it. Whereever there is electronic music, boom, raid and shut down. In a previous thread, someone made a great analogy about red lights and people who drive through them. there are going to be People who gonna drive through red lights, does that mean cars should be illegal?
I think the RAVE act should simply create a division to find drugs and druggies without interrupting the entertainment inside the venue. Sure, undercover cops is fine. But perheaps they (the government) should send their own super official bouncers to keep drugs out of the scene. That way the druggies can go home and smoke their crack or whatever, and us clean ones can have an enjoyable, dancing, talking to DJs, socializing without further harrassment from feds, police or security |
unfortunately pushers and pillheads (raises hand) is the only thing that keeps the EDM scene around outside 'clubs' (which is a shitty outlet for the most part and also thrive off of rampant drug use). I don't have any statistical information so the only 'proof' i can provide for this perhaps is anecdotal evidence. When you go to parties, you are unavoidably going to run into a lot of high people. At least here in WA (I don't really have any reason to believe this facet of the scene varies based on geolocation). Technically musicheads are the minority in the scene, the other people 'come to get high' and 'social interaction'. Either way, you kill the drug outlet, you kill the scene, or at least in the sense it is now. [real] drug pushers aren't going to go away either, they thrive on being the lowest common denominator.
Promoters are pushing a bottom line, and it if it is in red ink they really don't have any reason to keep promoting. Say what you will, but U.S. drug policy is in dying need of reform, it's simply not working, and this bill is a step in the wrong direction from any perspective. Especially since its putting liability on the promoter/owner for what their patrons are doing, *and* its infringing on civil rights. In fact, drug legislation has been an infringement on civil rights from square one. Some european countries have taken steps in the mid 90's to reform this injustice (from my understanding, the Netherlands(holland) at least, and UK has laxed up its drug laws a lot..)
___________________
| quote: | Venus: And there are troops of savage giraffes whose necks are on fire, like
the starry ejaculations of fireworks in the very pale sky of childhood
...
Venus: Enter, enter here - men of all kinds and races, victims of reality!
You who have the thirst for dreams.
...
Venus: You, on life's bitter road, drenched in hard sunlight who have the
thirst that once more the dark marvel of dreams... |
|
