Raving Lunacy

Depends on what those Christians have in their Kool-Aid...

And I'm not saying, "Let's bust born-agains". I'm saying that going after raves and certain concerts is a necessary and logical part of the WoD, PRESUMING we wish to pursue the WoD. In either case, actual incidence of drug use or ownership would have to be witnessed by an officer of the law before any arrests can be made.

FWIW, I think it's utterly retarded to bust people for ownership of bottled water and glowsticks, or for the distribution of such at an establishment. However, where bottled water and glowsticks are distributed, there's a 99% chance that there's X and meth being used very nearby.

I find it hilarious, for example, that you can legally buy bongs, under the pretense that you can use them for tobacco. Even if, in theory, somebody out there at some point used a bong for tobacco, the vast overwhelming majority of bong sales are for pot. The DEA knows this full well, but bongs stay legal just 'cuz it's completely not worth the trouble of prohibiting them. Besides, by keeping tabs on who's buying bongs, you'll learn who's doing pot. That's why I build mine out of old plumbing equipment... :)

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?

How about a form of heroin that doesn't make people end up in methadone clinics? Or a form of crack that doesn't cause a psychotropic cascade? Or how about simply a form of alcohol that doesn't lead to alcoholism, or a form of tobacco that people don't need patches in order to give up?

I'm all about free will. Yes, a person has to choose to take that first hit of crack, and yes, if they get addicted on the first shot, that's something they walked right into. That's why I strongly believe that early and extensive education on the effects of drugs has been one of the major benefits of the WoD. It's a form of consumer awareness.

If they're already addicted, then they can choose to endure withdrawal rather than buy another hit. However, would a reasonable person make such a choice? Once you're addicted, another hit becomes a biological need, like air or food. Does "free will" absolve you of the need to eat or breathe?

Now, some products have less addictive properties than others. Nicotine, for example, is more addictive than pot, which is why I believe that it's hypocritical to keep pot illegal. There's evidence to suggest that chocolate has addictive properties; however, its level of addictivity is low enough not to cause consumers to fall into a trap after a single purchase.

Crack, however, does implement such a trap. Taking crack exactly once is likely to cause a person to be unable to live without it. The person has to endure severe physical punishment if they try to avoid purchasing the product. That's no different than extortion, and it does not fall under the scope of free market economics; you're not "free" to make a choice to go without crack if you're going to end up in agony by refusing a sale.

Look... If I gave you, say, syphillis, and then charged you an arm and a leg for antibiotics, I would have earned my profits off of you illegally, immorally, and through imposition on your free will. Likewise, if, by giving you a sampler of crack and tricking you into taking it, I give you a medical condition, an addiction, wherein you have to continue to purchase crack for reasons of continuation of your life and health, whether or not you have free will ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not I've acted ethically.

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?

Well, I'd say you'll be waiting a long time for all that...

I genuinely don't get your position. Utopia is not an option. We have what we have, so that's what we must work with. No one denies that drugs (and alcohol, and tobacco) have bad effects. The question is what's worse - (1) a failed ludicrous drug war, which has nasty side affects for everyone in the country, and doesn't accomplish the purpose to boot, or (2) allowing people to choose bad behaviours and suffer the consequences.

You seem to be prepared to take the first option without ever seriously examining just how bad the second is, and whether it's worse than the first. All because you've decided, with genuine parental-sounding concern, that you know how people ought to live their lives. Problem is, that exact same rationale applies to everything from snow-skiing to eating fatty foods.

Of course, you have your own mental model of this "spectrum" of bad things. Some are so bad in your mind you'll do anything to stop them. Others like marijuana are relatively benign, again in your mind, so that you'll give them some level of acceptance. But who are you to decide for the whole world? Why not that activist group that wants to ban fatty foods? Or the PETA guys who believe it's immoral to eat meat. Do you not consider it arrogant to decide what's right for the rest of the world?

I think smoking, drinking to excess, using cocaine, heroin, and pot are all silly, destructive habits. But I know smokers who lived to ninety, people who used cocaine recreationally for years and then put it behind them (such folks do exist!), and of course many who consume alcohol or pot most of their lives with neglible ill effects. So I don't presume to judge for the rest of the world. I'm disappointed that you think you should be able to do just that.

Basically all of the fractured behavior and acts of unintegrated values is the result of many people wanting to temporarily distance themselves from life on Earth, and others wanting to stop them using a species of force not appropriate to the task. That force had been tried before and failed before with exactly the same problems.

Using that force is like administering a medicine against social flu labeled, Side Effects: ptituitary cessation, bone deterioration, heart seizure, muscular atrophy, death.

The most you can reasonably do is educate people with true data, fully verified - not asinine lies calculated to frighten. Let them make their own choices and teach their children. Let those who want to die, die, and levy criminal penalties against those who damage others while on drugs, like alcohol.

That's the one thing we haven't tried. The drug consciousness really began when some people were getting addicted to opium derivatives in patent medicines because they had no information on the dangers. Later people were dieting on amphedamines and had no knowledge of the consequences.

I believe few people will stick their heads into a lion's mouth, if they know it's a lion's mouth. Those who want to challenge the odds know the stakes.

You seem to be intentionally misconstruing my position.

I am not saying that I think certain drugs should be kept illegal because they're "bad for people". I'm saying they should be kept illegal because they're chemically addictive, and therefore give the supplier an unfair advantage over the consumer.

Take heroin, for example. I don't give a damn about the user's weakened heart, taxed immune system or loss of appetite. I do not presume to tell people, or force people, to not use heroin because its side-effects could kill them. I am NOT playing parent. I challenge you to find in my posts anywhere where I believe that people should be forced to avoid a drug out of concern for their well-being.

What I DO care about, however, is the fact that the supplier of heroin has the power to engage the consumer in a business transaction from which the user cannot escape without extreme physical repercusions. Free market economics work only because the producer and the consumer can each choose to enter into a transaction that each perceives as beneficial. A transaction that's entered into because the user feels like they're on the verge of death is not one that is made through reasonable choice.

I do NOT believe activities should be made illegal based on their risk to the practitioner. I'm not saying we should outlaw bungee jumping, or Russian roulette. But neither bungee jumping nor Russian roulette enact chemical changes on the brain that bind the participant to a constant need to expend financial resources. I believe in the continued illegality of certain highly addictive drugs for the same reason that I support the illegality of extortion, bribery, blackmail, etc.; not because I want to parent people, but because I believe in the integrity of the free market.

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.

For all of the "I don't go to them, but I support them" defense I've seen, I think it's about time that a Freeper raver (betcha didn't think they existed, eh?) actually spoke up with a story here.

Some years ago I had a friend who was getting into the rave scene who decided to throw one of his own. Like most raves, he did months of promotion, setup, advertisement, etc. He put a ton of time, effort, and money into it.

Two weeks before it was to be held, another rave was held by some very sloppy promoters, guys who really didn't know what they were doing. Things got out of hand and some fighting broke out: nothing more than you might see at a bar on any given night, but enough to get some people's attention.

The next week (week before my friend's event) another rave was held there, and it got swarmed. Local, state, and federal (DEA) officials came to "bust" the party. Although there were about 800 people there and they made an effort to arrest as many as possible for drug possession (drug sniffing dogs, cavity searches), a whopping 8 people were arrested for possession. The Cheif of Police then made a statement that there would be no more raves in his neighborhood, and that if there were, there would be double the police the next time around.

My friend panicked at the thought of needing to change locations last minute like this. Then he stopped panicking and came to a decision.

@%(?*!! them. The rave will go on as scheduled.

With that, everyone who came understood what might be happening. Many came with bust cards. A few brought video cameras. But what nobody brought that I saw was drugs, and nobody seemed to be on anything.

Admittedly fewer people were there than would have been otherwise. This was just too real for some. But who did show up was there for the right reasons. They knew why this was being held. And that doubling of police we were promised? One cop showed up, and he was turned away at the door, told that he had to buy a ticket like everyone else. He didn't, and left. So the party went on, awesome music was played (at least as far as we're concerned), and the folks who were there still today talk about the day they stood up to the machine and won a little victory of their own. Repeat: with not a single illicit chemical present, people who attended this had the time of their lives, myself included.

Now: if you want to look at this and believe that raves are still just "excuses for temporary opium dens or crackhouses" then go for it. As someone who's lived it, I can tell you that that statement is about as accurate as saying that football games are excuses for temporary beer distilleries (sp?).

Oh, and those glowsticks? I keep a bunch of them on me at all times. I think they're one rung below duct tape on the usefulness scale. Having a small, portable light source that's always charged no matter how long you hold onto it is astoundingly handy. And lest we forget, they started as (and still are sold as) highway safety devices.

I could go on, but I'm hoping that I made my point. If you don't ever want to have anything to do with raves, then I don't know anyone that would ever force them on you. However, given the vicious stereotyping that conservatives get subjected to on a daily basis, I would think you guys would know a little better than to make such broad generalizations about things you have little to any direct experience with (excepting, of course, the scattered few here who do).

These Raves are just the tip of the iceberg. Flying under the radar is a well entrenched business which makes millions off of catering to marijuana smokers and their needs. These businesses are called, by some in the scene, Movie Theaters. Study after Study has shown that one of the preferred entertainment choices of pot smokers are movie theaters. The vast majority of those smokers polled admitted that they "smoke a bone" almost always before going to see Hollywood's latest offerings. Just a casual look reveals that our Nation's movie theater chains fuel this un-American, evil practice.

Everyone knows that pot smokers frequently get what is referred to as "the munchies" when smoking their insidious weed. The munchies are defined by an uncontrollable desire to eat snacks and junk food. Also, pot smokes generally suffer from a condition generally referred to as "cotton mouth,” which is characterized by a dry mouth and the need for liquid refreshment to remedy the same.

Now, just look what's right inside the door at most of these "movie theaters" and you'll see what many movie house stoners refer to in their druggie lingo as the "snack counter." Here, these drug addled denizens can buy popcorn, candy, hot dogs and many different soft drinks to satisfy their munchies and cotton mouth. These movie houses are so brazen that they don't even try to hide their sale of this drug paraphernalia...no they sell it right out in the open. Hopefully, Senator Biden will not stop after he has eliminated the nefarious "raves", rather, he must continue his jihad and move on the big players in the drug consumption game, the Movie theaters. Let's do it for the children.

Heh, congrats on what sounds like a total kick-a$$ party. Hats off to you.

I just wanna clarify one thing, though. You seem to think that I'm projecting a stereotype onto ravers to follow some kind of party line. I'm doing nothing of the sort. I used to go to a handful of raves, and though I don't go all that often anymore, I still keep one or two "coked-out club kid" outfits in the back of my closet. My experience with raves has been that they're categorical opium dens (hell, that's half the appeal! :) ). Now, the raves I've been to have been in the Chicago and Seattle areas. I don't know which part of the country your raving has taken place, but it's entirely reasonable to assume that there's different raver cultures in different regions, or multiple raver subcultures in the same region. I've consistently witnessed a one-to-one correspondence between raves and ubiquitous drug use. But hey, maybe I should come party with your crowd sometime. :)

Hey there,

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions on ya. Think I'm on a bit of a rampage today.

To be fair, you're right, a lot of the rave scene really is heavily tied to the drug culture. At one party that my wife went to there were kids hanging around outside looking to score something, and were bummed when they realized they wouldn't have enough money for both admission and their other purchases. When she asked them if they needed drugs to have a good time, they confusedly said "Yeah".

So I do know where you're coming from, so apologies for jumping on ya there. I think with things like the RAVE Act and other such nonsense, I'm feeling the need to not be quiet any more about being in the culture that's under attack.

But tell you what: when I finally start throwing events of my own, I'll let you know. :-)

You seem to be intentionally misconstruing my position.

No, you seem to be dodging the questions I pose. You claim not to be parental, but I assert once again that deciding arbitrarily what is addictive and therefore to be prohibited is parental in attitude. You may couch it in "breakdown of the free market" rhetoric (a favorite rhetorical trick of liberals trying to get the government to do what they want, by the way), but using such terminology does not invalidate the argument that the attitude is parental. You claim the ability to decide for others what actions they should or should not take based on your opinions of the addictiveness of the substances in question.

Plus the fact that, according to some studies, nicotine is at least as addictive as cocaine and heroin, so to be consistent in your position you should be calling for prohibition of cigarettes. Yet, you dodged the first attempt I made to compare, very closely, the effects of tobacco to those of other addictive drugs.

You have also dodged every attempt to confront the issue of costs vs. benefits of prohibition. Even presuming you are correct that some substances are so addictive that they invalidate the free market (I don't agree, but let's stipulate it for the moment), that still does not answer the question of what to do about the fact that the "cure is worse that the disease". That is, the negative effects of the prohibition of drugs, plus the externalities of some of those effects upon innocents, look to be far worse than the effects of drug legalization, in which (1) most of the externalities vanish so that consequences are restricted to those who choose to take a chance on becoming addicted, and (2) the costs of the drug war in money, lives, lost freedom, etc. are avoided.

So, I'll make the questions blunt. If you believe addictiveness means substances should be illegal, then why don't you call for the prohibition of tobacco because of its addictiveness? Do you believe the prohibition of drugs is worth the horrendous costs it imposes on society?

Finally, I want to address one outrageous assertion:

"What I DO care about, however, is the fact that the supplier of heroin has the power to engage the consumer in a business transaction from which the user cannot escape without extreme physical repercusions."

The supplier virtually never uses force to engage the consumer. Therefore the consumer easily has the power to avoid the initial transaction with no physical repercussions whatsoever. The consumer must choose to begin using the drugs. It may be an extremely unwise choice, and they may later regret it (as many smokers I know do), but it is still their choice. There's no force involved in getting that ball rolling.

You claim not to be parental, but I assert once again that deciding arbitrarily what is addictive and therefore to be prohibited is parental in attitude.

No, I'm sorry, but it's not. I'm not saying people shouldn't USE drugs because it's bad for their health. I AM saying that the WoD is right to prosecute people who SELL drugs, for the same reasons that we prosecute people for false advertising or for extortion or blackmail.

If I take out a loan from Vinne My Favorite Loan Shark, I should know that he'll break my kneecaps if I don't pay back that loan. Yes, dealing with him in the first place was my own damn mistake. But that doesn't make it moral or legal for him to break my kneecaps.

Likewise, buying a hit of heroin from your favorite street dealer might be a mistake on your part, but that doesn't make it moral or legal for the dealer to force you to endure withdrawal pains if you don't buy more from him.

You may couch it in "breakdown of the free market" rhetoric (a favorite rhetorical trick of liberals trying to get the government to do what they want, by the way)

Okay, there's practically nobody else posting to this thread anymore. It's just you and me. And you've taken to insulting me. I'll let my position speak for itself at this point. Have a nice day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.