Raving Lunacy

Fox News ^ | July 24, 2002 | Glenn Reynolds

[NonZeroSum]

We

[NonZeroSum]

We don't need bigger government to fight terrorism, but we sure need smarter government.

[Mike4Freedom]

I am afraid that "smart government" is a contradiction in terms. The people who gravitate into the bureaucratic levels of government are the ones that could not make it in the free market. These are the last people that we should be trusting power to. They come up with idiotic ideas like the RAVE act, the War on Drugs and civil forfeiture.

[Omedalus]

Both you and Glenn Reynolds have obviously never been to a rave. The extension of the crackhouse law in this case is dead-on. Nobody goes to raves for the music. :)

[Imal]

The U.S. Government seems to be at war with everything. Now we see the "War on Terror" merging with the "War on Drugs", with frightening and questionable new police powers being brought to bear on U.S. citizens.

Is this a "War on Freedom" coming into being? Or has it already been underway for decades, now approaching its endgame?

The stupid behavior of the pols who support the RAVE bill may seem silly enough to downplay, but, ultimately, when so many leaders of our country act so irresponsibly, it is very serious business, indeed.

The ONLY check or balance against the power of the U.S. Government is the collective will of the citizens of the United States. It is not only our RIGHT to question and criticize our leaders, but it is also our solemn DUTY.

With open flouting of the U.S. Constitution by many government bodies on the one hand, and the clamoring for false security by so many citizens on the other, the outcome of the "War on Freedom" may already be decided.

Imal

[Britton J Wingfield]

Yes, they do. Many are whacked out on drugs, sure, but many are not. I know a few of the 'are not' category.

[Redcloak]

Stories like this make me want to do drugs.

Where's the Advil?

I think that I'll just crush a few and snort 'em.

I'm not kidding. I read the first two paragraphs and I started to get a throbbing behind my right eye.

[Omedalus]

Then they must have done enough drugs beforehand to actually like the music... :) Anyway, my post's mostly in jest. I personally have no clue what would be appealing about a rave if you take away the X, the meth, and the silver-clad drug-addled over-friendly underage girls. But I'll take your word for it that some people might actually like it for its own sake. :)

[Britton J Wingfield]

The silver-clad drug-addled over-friendly underage girls are a completely different story :)

[Bush2000]

Yes, they do. Many are whacked out on drugs, sure, but many are not. I know a few of the 'are not' category.

Quite obviously, you're not on the latter category...

[Jhoffa_]

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said "most raves are havens for illicit drugs," and congressional findings submitted with the bill label as drug paraphernalia such rave mainstays as bottled water, "chill rooms" and glow sticks.

Boy, Biden is gearing up for that police state alright..

Of course this is overly broad and will never stand serious scrutiny.. But he got his sound bytes in and that's all he cares about I bet.

[Mike4Freedom]

Of course this is overly broad and will never stand serious scrutiny

The trouble is that similar idiotic bills have made it through. Mere violation of common sense or the constitution does not guarantee rejection.

[Kermit]

"The extension of the crackhouse law in this case is dead-on."

The court disagreed with you, while Dick Durbin, Leahy, Grassley and Orrin Hatch agree with you. Go to bed with wacked out Statists and you wake up in prison.

The point here is that the War on (Some) Drugs is a failure in terms of actually doing something about people who have a drug problem. The WoD is a huge success is increasing the power of government, in creating a huge criminal enterprise, in promoting corruption. Now, terrorists in Central Asia are funding themselves with Drug Trafficking made possible and hyper-profitable by the WoD.

The WoD is putting the lives of thousands of Americans at risk from well-funded terrorists. Thanks Drug Warriors. You guys are great.

[Gladwin]

Why should it just be raves then? Except for classical music concerts, every other concert I've been to has been a haven for drugs and alcohol. (Not to mention lots of nudity/sex). Jerry Garcia is rolling in his grave.

[Britton J Wingfield]

I'm in the category that would not set foot in a rave for all the tea in china.

[Omedalus]

Aye. Lemme put it this way... I'll set my game of facetiousness aside for a moment.

I believe that narcotics do not fall clearly into a model of market-driven supply and demand because of some of their addictive effects. You can't apply free market principles to a product that enforces customer loyalty through the threat of illness or pain. Once a heroin or crack addict-to-be buys a hit (or tries a free sample), s/he HAS to keep buying more in order to avoid the agony of withdrawal. It'd be like trying a free package of fabric softener and then being told that if you don't keep buying the product, Vinnie will come over to your house and break your kneecaps.

That being said, I do also understand the arguments that, despite all our education and campaigning to the contrary, there is still a consumer demand for narcotics, and therefore a lot fewer people are going to get hurt and much fewer crimestopping tax dollars will be wasted if we have a drug industry rather than trusting it to street-corner dealers. However, we'll then have people b*tching about the "Big Pot" or the "Big Heroin" industry just like we have people griping about "Big Tobacco", complaining that they market a product that addicts and kills its users. Regulation will not make heroin or crack safe. At best, it can save us some tax dollars (which, admittedly, might not be so bad).

So, if we are dead set on pursuing a "war on drugs", we'd be kidding ourselves by saying that raves are not simply excuses for temporary opium dens or crackhouses. That goes for Phish concerts too. I mean, in both cases there's a legit front ("it's the music, really, we swear!") but gimme a break, who are you fooling? Even if SOME people actually do go for the music, the purpose of the event is largely to establish a drug-taking front, not to put on a concert. It's the modern-day equivalent of a speakeasy.

The only question in my mind is: Is that a bad thing? And I'm not quite convinced that it is. However, if we're fighting a WoD, then it'd be stupid to not go after raves. It'd be like permitting speakeasies during the Prohibition. If you're going to allow it, then why even have the Prohibition in the first place?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

My three-year-old nephew is fond of bottled water and glowsticks, and usually needs a "chill room." Presumably Biden regards him as a dangerous criminal.

Oh, no, Glenn Reynolds has an assault kid! Arrrrgh!

[Joe Bonforte]

I believe that narcotics do not fall clearly into a model of market-driven supply and demand because of some of their addictive effects. You can't apply free market principles to a product that enforces customer loyalty through the threat of illness or pain. Once a heroin or crack addict-to-be buys a hit (or tries a free sample), s/he HAS to keep buying more in order to avoid the agony of withdrawal.

OK, let's translate this to another product.

"I believe that cigarettes do not fall clearly into a model of market-driven supply and demand because of some of their addictive effects. You can't apply free market principles to a product that enforces customer loyalty through the threat of illness or pain. Once a smoker-to-be buys a few packs (or gets some free samples), s/he HAS to keep buying more in order to avoid the agony of withdrawal."

I don't buy your logic because I believe people have the power of free will. But even if your logic is stipulated, then it inevitably means prohibition of tobacco at a minumum, and probably alcohol too.

Now, we tried that, at least with alcohol. It was an obvious and unmitigated disaster. The War on Drugs is just as big a disaster, but for some wierd reason people (like you and Joe Biden) seem unwilling to face up to that fact.

I mean, come on. Glowsticks? Bottled water? Just how goofy does the Drug War have to get before you admit how nonsensical it is? In the last paragraph, you imply that you're growing unsure, but you're "not convinced". What else do you need? We've already seen Constitutional rights shredded to the point that the 4th Amendment is close to meaningless. We've seen court cases with names like "Backwater County vs. $14,553". We've put so many non-violent drug users in jail we have no room for theives and rapists. We've seen our inner cities turn into war zones, miring two generations of inner city youth into a cycle of poverty and violence. And none of this has made any significant impact on drug usage!

What more do you need to see before you're ready to throw in the towel, turn away from the creeping police state, and return to individual responsibility?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Just for that, I think I'm going to buy some glow sticks so I can break 'em out at night and wave 'em at passing police cars.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Are you sure the Christians haven't started having raves yet (they adapt their methods to "the world" sometimes, sans alcohol and drugs)? Yes, let's go ahead and bust innocent born-agains who are joyfully waving their glow sticks, drug-free, for The Lord.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

However, we'll then have people b*tching about the "Big Pot" or the "Big Heroin" industry just like we have people griping about "Big Tobacco", complaining that they market a product that addicts and kills its users.

Relax; if you keep drugs criminalized for that reason, who's to say they WON'T criminalize tobacco, oil, and other demonized products? Keep drugs criminalized for that reason, and you've merely given in to the statists.