Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Rave = crack house?
January 14, 2001 4:41 PM   Subscribe

Rave = crack house? More drug war idiocy.
posted by ritualdevice (38 comments total)

 
i would say its not unfair to associate ecstasy (or drugs in general) to raves. So long as the raves have already taken place, and there is proof that there was widespread drug use going on at the rave which could have been prevented or kept to a minimum, then it seems like a fair law to me.
posted by howa2396 at 5:02 PM on January 14, 2001


Yeah, we wouldn't want those kids having a good time now, would we?
posted by Neb at 5:11 PM on January 14, 2001


Well, I would still consider myself a kid, and I have a good time without illegal drugs (I don't have a problem with the drug use except that the drugs are illegal). As a matter of fact, I'm doing some pre-party beer drinking as I type this comment.
posted by howa2396 at 5:17 PM on January 14, 2001


Howa2396,

So the burden of prevention of drug use lies with the organizers of the rave? That's an interesting point of view.

You will notice that in this case, the rave took place in New Orleans. By your rationale, then, if Mardi Gras revelers choose to use illegal drugs during the celebration, the fault lies not with the users themselves, but with the organizers of the event. That would include everyone from the Mayor of New Orleans, to the Grand Marshall of the Baccus Parade. That's gonna take up a whole lot of jail space.

Think of it like this: If I take a tab of Ecstacy while at the mall, should the mall owner be prosecuted?
posted by Optamystic at 5:20 PM on January 14, 2001


Think of it like this: If I take a tab of Ecstacy while at the mall, should the mall owner be prosecuted?
That is the way gun laws work in Chicago. I don't agree with it either.
posted by thirteen at 5:27 PM on January 14, 2001


I don't think I wrote that at all. I think there is some responsibility on the shoulders of the organizers to keep things lawful at their parties/raves. So long as there is at least some effort being made to keep the party legal I think its fine (mall security for instance, or IDing people at a bar). I never said that the people with the illegal drugs shouldn't face charges, I simply said that if the organizers of the rave should have some responsibility to keep their rave under control. I don't neccessarily think they promoters of this particular rave should be charged (since I don't know the details). After all, ecstacy is nothing more than a pill and it seems to me like it would be difficult to observe people popping a pill in a big crowd.

If its well known that the mall is a place where large groups of poeple can get away with substance abuse then I definately think that the mall owner has some responsibility to clean his mall up.
posted by howa2396 at 5:32 PM on January 14, 2001


The article mentioned that rave's are places "often associated" with recreational drug use. Which is a far cry from substance abuse...
posted by Neb at 5:48 PM on January 14, 2001


I think substance abuse is on an individual level. However, I would say "often associated" is quite an understatement.

Just to clear up my previous comments, I definately don't think an organizer should face charges as serious as the persons using the drug, but it is still their responsibilty to keep the party as legal as they possibly can. People shouldn't be allowed to throw such parties and turn their backs on whats going on.

If you see a murder, do you have no responsibility to report it either?

That being said, its time for me to continue my alcohol abuse and get another beer.


posted by howa2396 at 5:55 PM on January 14, 2001


Fact is, the cops shouldn't be arresting people for Ecstacy use to begin with. When used responsibly, it is a relatively harmless substance, and it can be a great deal of fun. Kinda like that beer you're enjoying, howa.
posted by Optamystic at 6:01 PM on January 14, 2001


That, of course, is the intellectual vs. legal argument. What should be is, sad to say, rarely in line with what is legal.
posted by solistrato at 6:34 PM on January 14, 2001


my point exactly. I never said I was in favor of the law, but as long as the law is there I believe it should be enforced, otherwise whats the point of having laws at all?
posted by howa2396 at 6:57 PM on January 14, 2001


I'm getting conflicting messages, howa2396.

it seems like a fair law to me ... I never said I was in favor of the law

I find it surprising that the federal "crack house" law which was aimed primarily at inner-city, minority drug dealers is now being applied to (sub)urban white youths... Universal application of law? What a concept...
posted by Neb at 7:28 PM on January 14, 2001


okay, you caught me. I'm really just a drunk kid trying to act smart. sorry. after further review I really am in favor of the law (based on my limited knowledge of it). i never said i was against it, so thats fair enough isnt it? :)
posted by howa2396 at 7:56 PM on January 14, 2001


How is it that a country that places individual responsibility at the core of its (somewhat unique approach to) gun laws, still can't see its way around this legal blind spot when it comes to the victimless crime of drug use?

That's especially strange given that, if legalized, drug use would likely constitute far less harm to society than gun proliferation.

SO it is with firmarms, so it should be with drug use. So here's a new amendment for you:

"The unfettered right to take drugs, thankyou very much."

posted by lagado at 8:03 PM on January 14, 2001


...er firearms, I meant
posted by lagado at 8:27 PM on January 14, 2001


I'm with lagado, Guns and drugs for everyone! (but you'll be real sorry if you hurt anybody because of misuse).

So many of our problems seem to be exactly the same at the base level. Why can't we leave each other alone on issues that have nothing to do with each other? I think it is a real failing in our species.

Especially weird is the way we support some issues, while opposing others, when the freedom to do both would seem to come from the same idea of basic idea. The right to have an abortion is exactly the same right that gives you the freedom to own a hunk of metal in the shape of a gun. It is only the misuse of our freedoms that need involve the community.

I don't understand the desire to alter your mind (straight edge kids unite!), but I don't really care what you do with your body, so long as you don't fuck up my life.

Maybe I do understand it, Raves are tremendously dull if you are not one of the altered.

posted by thirteen at 8:41 PM on January 14, 2001


Thirteen has a very good point, and if drugs were leagal there would be even less people fucking with other peoples lives to be able to afford drugs. Legalising drugs would eliminate a large amount of crime and isn't that we we would rather have than a drug free society.

I don't care what anyone else does as long as it does not harm anyone else in any way. Someone taking drugs definately does not hurt anyone else.

And before anyone starts talking about the possibility of losing the plot while on drugs and then causing harm to other people, alcohol is legal and it happens all the time.
posted by Zool at 9:41 PM on January 14, 2001


If the population would just learn to think critically and actually examine the logic (or lack thereof) behind laws like this we wouldn't have so many of them. Every law diminishes your freedom.

I don't follow unreasonable laws just because they're there. I wasn't born on this earth to be a slave to some other's laws.

These are the rules I try and live by.

1)Do what ya like.
2)Don't hurt anybody else doing it.
3)Help each other out.

Pretty simple. For all the right wing crusaders out there I'll make it even simpler: It's WJWD. Too bad so many of his supposed followers didn't get the message.
posted by ritualdevice at 12:17 AM on January 15, 2001


So is this a fair law to apply to crack houses? Are MDMA and crack cocaine scheduled the same under the law?
posted by sudama at 1:15 AM on January 15, 2001


Wasn't MDMA Legal in the US until 1982?

Speaking as an Old Skool Raver (what is it with 'mericans and the ten-year music delay) there seems to be something about thousands of kids having fun without being taxed or hurting themselves which frightens Governments.

Check out the repetitive beats fiasco of the CJA in the UK

(to sum up the Act it actually defined the type of Music which was illegal I.E. Rave Music)
posted by fullerine at 4:23 AM on January 15, 2001


Since when does "kids having fun" have to equal "kids breaking the law?"

I'm 18, and I have plenty of fun - and so far, I haven't had to break the law doing it.

In fact, I don't understand why some folks feel they need to take so-called "safe drugs" like Ecstasy to have a good time. Are these people so completely devoid of personality and intelligence that they have to get drugged before they can have fun? I'd rather have my fun myself, instead of letting a drug have it for me, thanks.
posted by Spirit_VW at 9:52 AM on January 15, 2001


zool: Someone taking drugs definately does not hurt anyone else

What about spouses, children, parents, siblings? Drug abuse is far more harmful to the family than to the abuser.
posted by netbros at 10:24 AM on January 15, 2001


Again, recreational drug use != drug abuse!!!
posted by Neb at 10:45 AM on January 15, 2001


who would vouch for the *ahem* "safety" of ecstasy ? way ' a back when it used to look like a gigantic vitamin C tablet, it wasn't illegal (yet) and it was marginally safe as far as any brain-juice altering chemical could be... now it's cut with anything from speed to baby laxitives. So, would it be the people peddling x to teenagers that would warrant the safety of thier product? hmmm. teenagers who are connoisseurs of anything make me uneasy.
posted by jyoung at 11:14 AM on January 15, 2001


OK, how about if I change my previous statement to read, drug use is far more harmful to the family than to the user.
posted by netbros at 11:27 AM on January 15, 2001


netbros, I'd be interested in discovering exactly how my family's been hurt by any of the joints I've smoked. Or yesterday, say, when I went out and had a beer with a friend I hadn't seen in a few months?

Did my family get hurt by the coffee I drank this morning? Oh, and the medication my dad takes to help control his blood pressure, exactly how is that hurting his family?

Personally, I'd have thought that helped his family because, you know, he isn't dead yet.

Semantics? Possibly. Hyperbole? Almost definitely, but the type of drug user we're talking about in this thread is the one who'll smoke an occasional joint, or drop an occasional hit, or chew an occasional shroom. We're not talking about the stereotypical coke-addict stock broker who sells his daughter's favorite teddy bear for his next hit.

It is possible to use drugs, all kinds of drugs, legal or otherwise, responsibly and without detriment to those around you.
posted by cCranium at 11:39 AM on January 15, 2001


cC, I used to feel exactly the same way you do, until over a period of 20 years my recreational drug and alcohol use slowly, but ever so surely, exploded into full-blown addiction. Those around me, who loved me the most, are the ones who suffered the most.
posted by netbros at 11:44 AM on January 15, 2001


netbros, I'm sorry, that sucks. But I know people in their fifties who have been toking since college, and have managed to lead happy, successful lives. So, countering anecdote with anecdote...it's possible.
posted by lbergstr at 12:15 PM on January 15, 2001


netbros, I truly am sorry that you and your family had to suffer through your addiction.

I wonder though, is it fair that because of a subset of the population who, for various reasons, are afflicted by the disease of addiction, should the many, many more people who don't suffer from it not be allowed to enjoy something they can control?

And, since I'm only 23, I'm not speaking of myself now, since I admit that I too may fall into it (though considering how little I actually do imbibe I'm reasonably assured that I won't). It's been proven, through the people who've lived their lives with occasional recreational drug usage (be it alcohol or pot) that are able to do it without becoming addicted?

I'm really not trying to make light of alcholism or any other addiction, they are diseases and they have affected people in my life too.

I just can't agree that because it can be a problem for a minority, the majority must do without.
posted by cCranium at 12:20 PM on January 15, 2001


Sure, and I don't mean to imply that my experience is the norm. Only about 10% of recreational drug users or social drinkers ever exhibit signs of addiction or alcoholism. I merely took exception, as in my original comment, to the notion that controlled substance or alcohol usage, and in particular abuse, is victimless.
posted by netbros at 12:22 PM on January 15, 2001


I'm still trying to understand what's wrong with the rave = crack house equation. The only differences I can see are that crack is more addictive than ecstacy, and that ravers are largely white while the crackhead of the colonized imagination is Black. Am I missing anything? Why are we so indignant about the government telling whites not to use drugs but not about the damage the war on drugs is doing to communities of color?
posted by sudama at 12:59 PM on January 15, 2001


netbros: Alright. I misunderstood you, apologies.

Sudama: Crack houses, by the definition I understand to be the case (which is, admittedly, not necessarily the most accurate of definitions), exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to manufacture and distribute crack.

Raves are parties. There's music, there's dancing, there's lots of people. The drugs at raves are a factor, but they don't exist solely for the manufacture and distribution of ecstacy (or any other drug).

I think that may be the distinction.

Also, many of us are indignant about the damage the war on drugs is doing to all communities, it's part of the reason some of us are fighting for decriminalization or legalisation. Decriminalizing, or legalising, much drug use will stop a whole lot of the damage that isn't directly caused by drug use.
posted by cCranium at 1:41 PM on January 15, 2001


I think the indignance goes both ways, sudama, and in both cases, it's misguided.
posted by Dreama at 1:44 PM on January 15, 2001


the crackhead of the colonized imagination

That'd make a GREAT band name...
posted by Neb at 2:13 PM on January 15, 2001


No apology necessary. I shoulda been more descriptive.
posted by netbros at 6:46 PM on January 15, 2001


Netbros, i understand what you went through as i have a friend who experienced the same things. He only ended up going to rehab when he was busted with a wide variety of drugs on his person by the police.

I went raving three times a week for three years without ever touching any drugs, so let's not associate raves with drugs as there are people who go these events purely for the music.

On the other hand i don't belive anyone goes to a crack house unless they are selling, buying or consuming the product, that's why it's called a crack house.
posted by Zool at 7:53 PM on January 15, 2001


Again, like sudama, I'm not willing to make a distinction between recreational drug use and substance "abuse".

Simply put, they both should be legal.

posted by lagado at 9:22 PM on January 15, 2001


Juss in case that was confusing, I should say I don't know what sudama's opinion of legalization is.

I was just agreeing that its not possible to make the distinction between recreational usage by middleclass folk from the rest of drug users.
posted by lagado at 9:27 PM on January 15, 2001


« Older i don't know about the rest of you, but this is th...  |  Buy your way onto network tele... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments