Replies

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?

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?

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).