Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/2/2001 11:03:11 AM EDT
Anyone here who has spent any time researching the war on drugs knows the strong parallels between the WOD and the war on guns. You know, the demonization by the government and the media. The complete loss of such things as the fourth amendment, due process and so on. Entrapment as a viable tool to root out said evil. Etc etc. Whats worse is the "freedom-loving" republicans are gung-ho to ban anything they find unacceptable such as dancing to music they don't like. I mean this stupid law is being promoted with the catch phraise, "If it just saves one child." Gee, where have we heard that before? With that having been said, this article really upsets me. Bob Graham (D-FL) and his Republican colleague in the house have introduced federal legislation to soup up anti-E funding. It also pressures cities into restricting "rave clubs" (whatever that means) by prioritizing those municipalities for Public Health Service grants. http://www.alchemind.org/DLL/sb1208_index.htm Now check out the actual text of the bill's third section: SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR ECSTASY ABUSE PREVENTION. Section 506B(c) of title V of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding at the end the following: '(3) EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS-(A) IN GENERAL- In addition to the priority under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall give priority to communities that have taken measures to combat club drug use, including passing ordinances restricting rave clubs, increasing law enforcement on Ecstasy, and seizing lands under nuisance abatement laws to make new restrictions on an establishment's use. '(B) STATE PRIORITY- A priority grant may be made to a State under this paragraph on a pass-through basis to an eligible community.' What this means is that the federal government will be bribing your town to seize your venue, or to ban spaces like it outright. Note that they make no effort to define what might constitute a "rave club."
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:22:19 AM EDT
The British government tried to do the same thing back when the rave movement really started going mainstream in the early 90's. They defined the outlawed music as music composed of successive beats. I don't think they were trying to get at the drug ecstasy, so much as crack down on a lifestyle that was becoming more prevalent, of people basically dropping out of society to dance. That's what the government hated the most about them, the lack of control they had over the dropouts. So they passed laws to imprison people who didn't want to stay on the boat, as Chef in Apocalypse Now would say.
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 11:23:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 11:20:33 AM EDT by erickm]
Wasn't it just yesterday that it was determined here that the best thing for anybody who has, is or has thought about doing mind-altering drugs (besides alcohol of course it never harmed or led to the harm of anybody) was a bullet to the head? Don't try and make some of these guys load up the rebel-flagged pickup and form a posse to find these rave clubs themselves, they'll do it.
Note that they make no effort to define what might constitute a "rave club."
View Quote
I'm pretty sure thats anyplace that more than 2 people can gather at that a. has more than strictly vocal music b. is not used for worshipping the lord c. allows dancing d. allows unwed, unescorted females e. allows laughing and smiling.[moon]
Link Posted: 8/2/2001 4:47:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2001 4:43:01 PM EDT by alphabeta121]
well said erick, the hypocrisy of many "freedom-lovers" astounds me (as does the hypocrisy of many users of non-approved substances) How does the line go, "freedom for me, not for thee." I mean I've been around both groups, and so I play the devils advocate always. When talking to gun nuts, I say, "How does giving someone the freedom to use a substance in his or her own home, jeopardize your right to live as you choose." I mean come on, we're talking about giving people the ability to smoke pot or eat mushrooms and do their own thing, the threat they pose is no greater than that of a drunkard. One could argue that allowing citizens to own assault weaponry is quite a bit more dangerous. Mind you I'm 100% in favor of that right, but I'm just throwing out an arguement. alphabeta121
Top Top