New Group Proposal: alt.rave.drugless
Christopher J. Moran
I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
alt.rave.drugless
It's quite appearant that there are lots of the 'drug using ravers' in
alt.rave who feel raves must have drugs. This makes those who do not want
drugs at raves or others who just don't use drugs probably feel a little
slighted.
There is no arguing the point really anymore. Users think they are right and
non-users either think users are wrong or are just used to either letting
'people people do whatever they want, if they're not hurting others' or
trying to not let it affect them.
Someone posted an article here about whether people would actually show up at
a rave that didn't have drugs. There haven't been too many responcs that I
could see yet...sad. This past summer there were over 150 people who came to
mine (small by many standards, but not here) with a no drug/algohol message
printed on the fliers even. So, I believe that even among the vast group of
users here, there might be many interested in exploring raves, raveing and
ravology without having to deal with the drug aspect.
What do you think?
peace out,
T-SNAKE
..........................................................................
Be, Live, Visit . . . alt.lifestyle.substance-free . . . FOUNDER
Chris Moran cmo...@zoo.uvm.edu |CROSSFADE RECORDS - Owner
=-<*)T-SNAKE, Connector Massive |90.1 WRUV FM Burlington, VT
/_/\_/\_/ http://www.uvm.edu/~cmoran |Atheist:SAFE:TechnoDJ:Geek:METW
G.O.T
go for it.
Do the NEWSGROUP.
dan
--
-----------------------------
http://www.getgames.com/ (the place to get games)
-----------------------------
| Info:
| mailto:dan...@technohouse.com
| Phone: (914) 684-0828
| Fax: (914) 644-8070
http://www.technohouse.com/
http://www.relaxed.com/
http://www.imcworld.com/
http://www.clubwearhouse.com/
http://www.fantasticjourneys.com/
http://www.getgames.com/
http://www.sex-bytes.com/
misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
In article <5dof3u$b...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>,
> I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
> alt.rave.drugless
> It's quite appearant that there are lots of the 'drug using ravers' in
> alt.rave who feel raves must have drugs. This makes those who do not want
> drugs at raves or others who just don't use drugs probably feel a little
> slighted.
> What do you think?
> peace out,
If you feel slighted by other people on a newsgroup
voicing opinions that differ from your own I suggest you leave USENET
entirely; even on alt.rave.drugless.notonsundays.gayless.whistlerless
you're bound to be slighted by the user who thinks a good rave has to
have lots of flashing lights and then what do you do, set up another
newsgroup?
Does a good rave need drugs or flashing lights? It doesn't matter;
people who enjoy raving under different conditions can still talk to
each other about their experiences, respect and enjoy each others
differences on a single newsgroup. This is an example of that PLUR
thing I think, peace-love-unity-respect? It's the last two which
are particularly important in this context.
If you feel incapable of respecting and enjoying other people's
opinions when they are different from your own then you're the problem.
What you really need is an alt.rave.[your name] newsgroup where you
will only hear what you like.
Dave
(unslighted)
SLiNKy GaL
On 11 Feb 1997 00:39:26 GMT, in alt.rave, cmo...@elk.uvm.edu (Christopher J.
Moran) wrote:
>
>I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
>alt.rave.drugless
T-Snake,
I would support a group such as this, being drug-free myself.
But I am worried that this would create a segregation between ravers that
choose to do drugs and those that choose not to. I am very wary about
creating a group where sober ravers exclude those who are not sober, and I
would be very saddened if the drug users and non-drug users were to have flame
wars over each other's choices.
I do enjoy the special bond that sober ravers share (even those who are sober
for one night out of many), and I would like to see drug-free ravers gain more
of a voice in the scene. Hopefully only to change the media perception that
raves are drug-fests. I do like the idea of the TRIP crew in Toronto, and the
Ottawa Sunphlour crew.. they do not condemn or condone drug use, yet they
promote education and mature decisions.
Jury's out on this one my friend. I'd rather not create segregation within
the scene, but I'd like to see more sober ravers come together and have a
voice against the media hype.
.-. .-.
|||||/\/\/\/\ /SLiNKy /GaL\ /\/\/\|||||
' `-' '
SLiNKy: n. A spring-shaped toy.
SLiNKy GaL: n. GaL with a SLiNKy.
T-SNAKE
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, SLiNKy GaL wrote:
> >I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
> >alt.rave.drugless
> But I am worried that this would create a segregation between ravers that
> choose to do drugs and those that choose not to. I am very wary about
> creating a group where sober ravers exclude those who are not sober, and I
> would be very saddened if the drug users and non-drug users were to have flame
> wars over each other's choices.
As is the point of usenet... alt.rave.drugless isn't meant to be about
only drug free ravers. Just drug free raves. Plenty of drug using
ravers have been to my events, but were sober (or at least didn't use
*at* my event). I may be strongly against drugs, but my point in this
isn't a quest to flame drug users, but to promote a feeling that some
of the drug users can't seem to accept....not all ravers NEED drugs to
rave, and many just wish drugs could be left for home or somewhere
else. I have lots of friends who use...well, not lots, but some, by
choice, and I woldn't say they couldn't come to my raves, they just
couldn't use at my raves. My next event is going to be special in that
ALL the DJs and entertainers are drug and alcohol free people. Their
choice for their lifestyle, my particular choice for this rave. It
seems to me that there are lots of users who would not concider this
even a rave, which is a sad thought.
> I do enjoy the special bond that sober ravers share (even those who are sober
> for one night out of many), and I would like to see drug-free ravers gain more
> of a voice in the scene. Hopefully only to change the media perception that
> raves are drug-fests.
While I'm at a rave, I'd rather not worry about making a special bond
based on being sober...I'd much rather get into the music, the BASS,
the environment and yes the unity to the beat. The only way for drug
free ravers to really get a voice is to demand that they are given
respect for that choice...
> Jury's out on this one my friend. I'd rather not create segregation within
> the scene, but I'd like to see more sober ravers come together and have a
> voice against the media hype.
The media won't get any points if they talk about us kids (well, I'm
25) who DON'T use drugs. Where's the news there? ;)
Thanks for your input...
peace out,
T-SNAKE
'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'
T-SNAKE tsn...@intake.rhombus.net A DJ on a mission,
CROSSFADE RECORDS http://intake.rhombus.net/~tsnake Drug free techno
,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,/'\,
Jonathan Magid
In article <5dof3u$b...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>,
Christopher J. Moran <tsn...@intake.rhombus.net> wrote:
>
>I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
>alt.rave.drugless
>alt.rave who feel raves must have drugs. This makes those who do not want
>drugs at raves or others who just don't use drugs probably feel a little
>slighted.
Personally, I don't think this is a particularly great idea. For me, the
importance of the rave experience is its suspension of hte usual
rules and customs that divide and partition our society into
little pieces. I like to rave with people of all races, sexual
orientation, and pharmaceutical preferences (well, I find that people
who are unpleasantly drunk on alcohol to be annoying, but I just stay away.
It's not their pharmaceutical preference that bothers me, but their
piggish behavior.); this diversity is a lot of what makes raves
a vital and dynamic environment.
When you start saying, "these are the people I want to party with
and no others", you're falling into the trap of our society's consensual
reality: you split yourself off from people whom you might find you like,
and who will enrich your life. It doesn't mean that you need to be
a drug user (or gay, or straight, space cadet, or transvestite or
whatever) if you don't want to (do what feels right to *you*), but
you shouldn't try exclude those people who are different from you.
Raves are about acceptance and respect, not division.
cheers,
jem.
--
j...@cnidr.org\/Center for Networked Information and Discovery and Retrieval
Co-author of UNIX Web Server Book (2nd ed), available January, '96 from Ventana
<URL:http://www.vmedia.com/cat/press/store/wsb>
David Martin
Isn't the rave about being accepted as you are?
That is, to be accepted regardless of whether you use drugs or not. I
think it's great that you don't use drugs at raves but it's also great that
when I want to I can and will be accepted when using them. The rave is one
of the few places in the world where you can be accepted regardless of
whether your on something or not.
To split the group between drug users and non drug users goes against the
whole concept of the rave unity.
Cheers,
David
SB
> Isn't the rave about being accepted as you are?
What if you're a Nazi or a slaveowner?
Mark S-D
>
>I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
>alt.rave.drugless
Are you not interested in the opinions of anybody else ? In creating
this group it would not guarantee that you would get rid of the people
you wish to....and this is what you are trying to do. I have in the past
used recreational drugs (naturally occuring) and have chosen not to for
a while now, I don't feel I'm a better person either way it's just a
choice I made, why should you feel you deserve a special group & how
many issues are only applicable to you and not the scene as a whole ?
OK, so you want to proove that raves are not just about drugs but at
what cost....more division. Raves ARE not just about drugs but drugs do
exist inside and outside of raves, people who say it is just a rave
thing are sadly mistaken....sorry I can't see the point of this at all.
--
| \/ | ____| \
| |____ | ;) )
| \/ | | / m...@marksd.demon.co.uk
gran...@grove.ufl.edu
On 11 Feb 1997, Christopher J. Moran wrote:
> I believe that even among the vast group of users here, there might be many
> interested in exploring raves, raveing and ravology without having to deal with the drug aspect.
> What do you think?
I think that if people want to do drugs, they will.
If they don't, they won't.
Is it really necessary to throw parties that specifically outlaw drugs?
That sounds elitist and goes against what I thought raves were founded on.
Sponsoring "drug free raves" also sounds a bit condescending to those who
attend, like they don't have enough mental power to refuse drugs if they
are around them. I don't use drugs, but I go to the world-renowed club
Simon's, where there are tons of people rolling, tripping, drunk, high, or
whatever. The drug use doesn't bother me, unless it's obvious someone has
taken too much and is losing control; when that happens, I just get out of
the way. I realize there's probably a big market for the kind of parties
you're referring to, especially since "rave" and "techno" are about to be
mainstreamed here in the US, but I feel people who say they want to party
but only on their terms (outlawing certain musics/drugs/people) are
missing the point.
Anthony
ft...@netcomuk.co.uk
>>I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
>>alt.rave.drugless
>
>T-Snake,
>
>I would support a group such as this, being drug-free myself.
>
>But I am worried that this would create a segregation between ravers that
>choose to do drugs and those that choose not to. I am very wary about
>creating a group where sober ravers exclude those who are not sober, and I
>would be very saddened if the drug users and non-drug users were to have flame
>wars over each other's choices.
I'm not a drug free raver, but I would strongly encourage a newsgroup
to do with rave where drugs are not to be discussed, if this is
basically the point of the alternative list (to talk about music and
rave rather than drugs) would I be welcome on it?
please do not reply via email, keep it on the newsgroup. drugs related
thingybobs are banned from my mailbox :)
take it easy
_________________ ______ ___________ ___
| / \| \| \ | | |
|__ __| | | | |_| |
| | | | | |\_ _/
| | | | | | | |
|___| \______/|______/|______/ |___|
Justin Beck
In article <01bc1c65$822a0dc0$e62874cf@mgross>,
SB <sbar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Isn't the rave about being accepted as you are?
>
>What if you're a Nazi or a slaveowner?
Show me the nearest Nazi or slaveowner (i.e. let's deal with reality). Not
to say that there aren't hardcore racists, sexists, thugs, capitalists, and
all-around murderers around...but let's at least name them correctly! :)
Justin
Matt Smith
In <5dof3u$b...@swen.emba.uvm.edu> cmo...@elk.uvm.edu (Christopher J.
Moran) writes:
>Someone posted an article here about whether people would actually
show up at
>a rave that didn't have drugs. There haven't been too many responcs
that I
>could see yet...sad.
>
>peace out,
>T-SNAKE
That was my post. The numbers of responces have been far from
hundreds, but there's been quite a lot. A lot of epople that didn't
post on the server e-mailed me. I'd say I've gotten about 40 or so
mail responses about it. It doesn't say a whole lot, but I like to
think a lot of people would be there that didn't respond.
That newsgroup would be cool. I'm sure you'd get less spam from
the religious crusaders.
The group also seems a little rediculous to me though. PLUR means
Respect for others rights to their own ideals, and Unity of the
community. Having an alt.rave.drugless isn't very unified. I think
all the ravers dancing are trying to get to the same space. We all use
the music and the dance and the lights, but some use a few other
things. I mean why not a alt.rave.glowsticksless or
alt.rave.jungleless? The idea is against a lot of what I beleive the
rave culture means, then again it wouldn't hurt much.
Dance Harder,
Matt
Christopher J. Moran
: When you start saying, "these are the people I want to party with
: and no others", you're falling into the trap of our society's consensual
: reality: you split yourself off from people whom you might find you like,
I'm not say that. I'm saying, "these are the people I don't want to rave
with, but all others, please join in" The these are those who won't party
without drugs or alcohol.
: and who will enrich your life. It doesn't mean that you need to be
: a drug user (or gay, or straight, space cadet, or transvestite or
: whatever) if you don't want to (do what feels right to *you*), but
: you shouldn't try exclude those people who are different from you.
So...who do you exclude? I hear it all the time about how different drug
userss rank on other drugs of choice. E heads diss on crack heads, coke
heads diss on Herion...et al.
One of my friends has done coke in the past and now is a reletively heavy
pot user, he has said namy times, "Man, people who use E are just
stupid". I thin kthe divisin lines are stupid. I don't say shit like, not
Coke or Heroin, but E and LSD are ok. I categorically dissallow use of
all illicit drugs and alcohol at my events. Those who think that's stupid
don't have to go. Those who are singing hallelluia, it's about time can
all come and feel safe for once.
: Raves are about acceptance and respect, not division.
You'd be surrised how little respect I've gotten all my life for choosing
NOT TO USE. I care about my body and my mind...excuuuuuse me!
Alex Cavaye
In article <01bc1c65$822a0dc0$e62874cf@mgross>,
"SB" <sbar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Isn't the rave about being accepted as you are?
>
>What if you're a Nazi or a slaveowner?
Dunno about other people, but if they're at a rave to have a good time, i'll
accept that. I think everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they
want, just as long as they've thought it through and understand completely
what it is they think to believe.
So no, i wouldn't give a shit if a skinhead with Swastikas all over him came
to a rave and partyed on....
bye
/\
Sturm \ explizit tracker - from acid to metal
Line In \ atmospheric techno composer
Alex Cavaye \ the man behind the sturmy mask :)
\/
st...@dds.nl http://huizen.dds.nl/~sturm
mictlantecutli
ft...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
> if this is
>basically the point of the alternative list (to talk about music and
>rave rather than drugs) would I be welcome on it?
that's already what we do on this newsgroup. there are drug-related
posts here and there, but mostly the posts are about the spirit of
raving and people's comments, flames, and advertisements regarding
raves. even the drug-related posts are pretty much in line with the
NG's philosophy: e.g., "should i take ecstasy at my first rave?",
"mushrooms, deep house, and PLUR are all i need", etc. drug-free,
sober-free, and everything in between is all welcome here, if you love
the beat and the scene.
PartyZone
On 16 Feb 97 14:37:59 +1200, misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> If you feel slighted by other people on a newsgroup
> voicing opinions that differ from your own I suggest you leave USENET
> entirely; even on alt.rave.drugless.notonsundays.gayless.whistlerless
> you're bound to be slighted by the user who thinks a good rave has to
> have lots of flashing lights and then what do you do, set up another
> newsgroup?
I fully agree with your post ! Setting up a new newsgroup for this
reason alone borders on the insane.
PartyZone - http://www.darkwoo.demon.nl/partyzone.html
Capi
On 11 Feb 1997 00:39:26 GMT, cmo...@elk.uvm.edu (Christopher J. Moran)
wrote:
>
>I just posted to alt.config a small proposal to start a new group called
>alt.rave.drugless
>It's quite appearant that there are lots of the 'drug using ravers' in
>alt.rave who feel raves must have drugs. This makes those who do not want
>drugs at raves or others who just don't use drugs probably feel a little
>slighted.
>There is no arguing the point really anymore. Users think they are right and
>non-users either think users are wrong or are just used to either letting
>'people people do whatever they want, if they're not hurting others' or
>trying to not let it affect them.
>
>Someone posted an article here about whether people would actually show up at
>a rave that didn't have drugs. There haven't been too many responcs that I
>could see yet...sad. This past summer there were over 150 people who came to
>mine (small by many standards, but not here) with a no drug/algohol message
>printed on the fliers even. So, I believe that even among the vast group of
>users here, there might be many interested in exploring raves, raveing and
>ravology without having to deal with the drug aspect.
>What do you think?
>peace out,
>T-SNAKE
>..........................................................................
> Be, Live, Visit . . . alt.lifestyle.substance-free . . . FOUNDER
> Chris Moran cmo...@zoo.uvm.edu |CROSSFADE RECORDS - Owner
>=-<*)T-SNAKE, Connector Massive |90.1 WRUV FM Burlington, VT
> /_/\_/\_/ http://www.uvm.edu/~cmoran |Atheist:SAFE:TechnoDJ:Geek:METW
Yes. Go ahead.
Jonathan Magid
In article <5eagfk$s...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>,
Christopher J. Moran <cmo...@elk.uvm.edu> wrote:
>
>: When you start saying, "these are the people I want to party with
>: and no others", you're falling into the trap of our society's consensual
>: reality: you split yourself off from people whom you might find you like,
>
>I'm not say that. I'm saying, "these are the people I don't want to rave
>with, but all others, please join in" The these are those who won't party
>without drugs or alcohol.
Okay, so you've converted the positive "I like these people and no others"
into the negative "I like everybody but these". That's okay- you're the
promoter, and he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.
Would it be okay for you to say you want to rave with anybody who isn't
gay? or straight? or Jewish? or Asian? No. I think pretty much everybody
would condemn that attitude as racism or homophobia or straigh-bashing.
In the case of racism, it's illegal (other laws vary with jurisdiction).
In the case of drug users, it's okay. Why? Because the overall society
says that people who use illegal drugs are *bad*. There no good.
Unredeemable. Rotten to the core. In fact, there after you're *children*!
(Oops. I've lost control. :) )
Now, to be fair- you've said that drug-users are okay at your parties,
just as long as they are not intoxicated, or in any alternative states
of consciousness.
Now, my question is this: There are other "drugs" than those that are on
list of no-no's. Many of these drugs are perfectly legal, prescribed
by doctors and change the consciousness of the user. SSRI anti-depressants
(Prozac, Paxcil, Zoloft), Benzoadimine tranquilizers (Valium), Tricyclics
(lithium), and Amphetamines (like Ritalin), are all legal ways (when
prescribed by your physician) to change your consciousness from "bad"
states to "good" and "productive" states. Are these people free to come
to your raves? What about people who've drunk a quadruple-expresso (which
in my experience is one of the strongest and least pleasant drug combinations)?
Or a bunch of super-sweet candy?
What I'm asking, I guess, is what do you object to about people in
a different state of consciousness than their "natural" one? And what
about people who's natural state is unhappy?
>
>So...who do you exclude? I hear it all the time about how different drug
>userss rank on other drugs of choice. E heads diss on crack heads, coke
>heads diss on Herion...et al.
>One of my friends has done coke in the past and now is a reletively heavy
>pot user, he has said namy times, "Man, people who use E are just
>stupid". I thin kthe divisin lines are stupid. I don't say shit like, not
>Coke or Heroin, but E and LSD are ok. I categorically dissallow use of
>all illicit drugs and alcohol at my events. Those who think that's stupid
>don't have to go. Those who are singing hallelluia, it's about time can
>all come and feel safe for once.
>
Who would I exclude? Well, as I said, I promote no events, so I have no
power to exclude. If I did, I'd exclude people who intend violence
(mental or physical) to their fellow ravers: People who want to (or can't help
but) do harm to the people who share their space.
You say you want your patrons to "feel safe", so it sounds like you have
the same idea. But in my experience, the set of intoxicated people
and the group of violent people is not one and the same. I've never been
hurt in any ways by anyone on drugs, and although I'm certainly not
saying that it's not possible that drugged people are violent (certainly
I've seen drunk people be more aggressive than normal, and that may
also be true for cocaine users, but I really haven't met very many), I
don't think that the use of drugs is an indicator that they will be hurtful.
In fact, I've received many very nice backrubs from strangers on E, so
I can't complain. :)
>: Raves are about acceptance and respect, not division.
>
>You'd be surrised how little respect I've gotten all my life for choosing
>NOT TO USE. I care about my body and my mind...excuuuuuse me!
>peace out,
>T-SNAKE
Now we come to the heart of the matter. You've been shat upon, and now
you want to shit back. How much of human tragedy follows from that- someone's
dumped on you, so you want dump on someone else.
I totally accept you're right to use or not use as you wish. I think you
no less of a great person because you're drug free- in fact, I can admire
your discipline and self-respect, but I don't think one should project
one's personal decisions onto the community.
Just because something is right for you, doesn't mean that everyone wants
it or needs it.
In conclusion, I just want to say that I see where you're coming from-
the drug scene can be quite dangerous- mentally, legally, and physically.
This is especially true for the new generation of "baby ravers"- the
13-14 year old kids I see. As these kids' parents start to figure
out what they're up to (assuming they care. I know that *my* parents
would not have allowed me to be at a party with lots of weirdos all night!),
there's going to be a backlash against above-ground parties. And I suspect
that you've got a strategy that will allow you to ride it out...
Tom Ewing
On 17 Feb 1997 20:53:08 GMT, cmo...@elk.uvm.edu (Christopher J. Moran)
wrote:
>I'm not say that. I'm saying, "these are the people I don't want to rave
>with, but all others, please join in" The these are those who won't party
>without drugs or alcohol.
Well, that seems more reasonable. I sometimes do drugs when I'm out
dancing, I sometimes don't. I don't proselytise. Your stipulation
above seems to let me in, which is nice.
Though I do worry that by this ng's only raison d'etre being
drug-related (their avoidance) will mean they get discussed - or
slated - even more. I mean, I honestly don't see too many drug-related
threads on alt.music.techno. and I don;t remember too many on
alt.rave.
>So...who do you exclude? I hear it all the time about how different drug
>userss rank on other drugs of choice. E heads diss on crack heads, coke
>heads diss on Herion...et al.
>One of my friends has done coke in the past and now is a reletively heavy
>pot user, he has said namy times, "Man, people who use E are just
>stupid". I thin kthe divisin lines are stupid. I don't say shit like, not
>Coke or Heroin, but E and LSD are ok
Dividing lines between different drugs aren't stupid, for the simple
reason that drugs have different effects. Assuming they've already
thought about the legal consequences, it's completely reasonable for
people to say 'Coke and pot yes, E and LSD no', or whatever
permutation they want.
>: Raves are about acceptance and respect, not division.
>
>You'd be surrised how little respect I've gotten all my life for choosing
>NOT TO USE. I care about my body and my mind...excuuuuuse me!
One problem I've found is that non-drug users can get very
self-righteous about their abstinence. Once a casual user has been
harangued by a couple of non-users, they become wary of anyone
announcing themselves as a non-user (as opposed to just not using).
It's like how most atheists I know have become wary of Christians
after a few have gotten evangelical on them.
Of course the same thing happens in the other direction too, and
possibly more so.
Cheers,
Tom.
tew...@netcomuk.co.uk
FUNNY FOLK: Minicomics via e-mail from The E Brothers.
The satirical detritus of two lifetimes' comic reading.
E-mail as above for more details or a sample (150K) file.
(Apologies if yr e-mail got lost in recent server fuckups)
Tom Ewing
On 21 Feb 1997 12:10:02 -0500, j...@president.oit.unc.edu (Jonathan
Magid) wrote:
>In article <5eagfk$s...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>,
>Christopher J. Moran <cmo...@elk.uvm.edu> wrote:
>>I'm not say that. I'm saying, "these are the people I don't want to rave
>>with, but all others, please join in" The these are those who won't party
>>without drugs or alcohol.
>Would it be okay for you to say you want to rave with anybody who isn't
>gay? or straight? or Jewish? or Asian? No. I think pretty much everybody
>would condemn that attitude as racism or homophobia or straigh-bashing.
>In the case of racism, it's illegal (other laws vary with jurisdiction).
>
>In the case of drug users, it's okay. Why?
Because it's idiotic to equate prejudice against drug takers with
prejudice against people of other races or sexualities. I don't have a
choice about being white or British or straight (this last one is
admittedly debatable), so if someone hates me simply because of these
things, that is certainly to be condemned. On the other hand, I
definitely have a choice about whether or not I neck down a couple of
Es before I go out raving. If someone wants to hate me because of that
choice, they're not morally wrong for it.
>What I'm asking, I guess, is what do you object to about people in
>a different state of consciousness than their "natural" one? And what
>about people who's natural state is unhappy?
One interesting point is whether music is itself addictive, and if it
can be considered a drug. Volume and repetition of sound certainly
affect the listener physically, and their effectiveness in inducing
altered mental states is deomstrated by their popularity as
brainwashing tools :). I remember being shown by my concerned parents
a few years back a newspaper clipping saying that scientists had
discovered that noise had addictive properties. I think they're right:
if I go a day or two without listening to music I become *very*
cranky. I've also progressed from pop music to progressively 'harder'
and more extreme forms of music - the classic pattern of moving from
soft drugs to hard drugs, though I still love pop.
This is only partly tongue in cheek :)
Moondance Foxmarnick
Christopher,
> There is no arguing the point really anymore. Users think they are right and
> non-users either think users are wrong or are just used to either letting
> 'people people do whatever they want, if they're not hurting others' or
> trying to not let it affect them.
How about non-users respecting the rights of others? I'm sorry if that
kind of language syntax is not slanted to you P.O.V. but it is a _very_
moral stance to take.
> Someone posted an article here about whether people would actually show up at
> a rave that didn't have drugs. There haven't been too many responcs that I
> could see yet...sad.
Again you are letting your P.O.V. color your statements. Try:
disappointing.
> So, I believe that even among the vast group of
> users here, there might be many interested in exploring raves, raveing and
> ravology without having to deal with the drug aspect.
If you can/wish to hold a rave with specific restrictions and/or
requirements and in your eyes this event is a success, what more
validation do you require? Will the e-mails of 15 alt.ravers validate
you? 30? Look for validation within not without.
> What do you think?
I wish you great success. For the younger age set, there are legal
issues involved in attending the average rave. Your raves could provide
an alternative for many. I feel it would be more effective if you could
maintain a presence in alt.rave so that others could get an exposure to
your ideas. If you create a specific news group, then all you are
accomplishing is "preaching to the converted" as it were. I do not find
the concept of a rave w/out drugs offensive anymore than a rave with
drugs. Please attempt to continue to post in alt.rave in a
non-condemming fashion.
-MF
Kashka
T-SNAKE (tsn...@intake.rhombus.net) wrote:
: As is the point of usenet... alt.rave.drugless isn't meant to be about
: only drug free ravers. Just drug free raves. Plenty of drug using
: ravers have been to my events, but were sober (or at least didn't use
: *at* my event). I may be strongly against drugs, but my point in this
: isn't a quest to flame drug users, but to promote a feeling that some
: of the drug users can't seem to accept....not all ravers NEED drugs to
: rave, and many just wish drugs could be left for home or somewhere
: else. I have lots of friends who use...well, not lots, but some, by
: choice, and I woldn't say they couldn't come to my raves, they just
: couldn't use at my raves. My next event is going to be special in that
: ALL the DJs and entertainers are drug and alcohol free people. Their
: choice for their lifestyle, my particular choice for this rave. It
: seems to me that there are lots of users who would not concider this
: even a rave, which is a sad thought.
The question at hand is not whether one should or shouldn't organise drug free
raves or whether or not the internet needs the proposed newsgroup.
New newsgroups are normally created in order to provide a place for people to
discuss things that are not covered by existing newsgroups already.
From what I understand, nobody was telling you not to discuss drug-free raves
on this newsgroup, in fact, alot of people here seemed to be interested in
a healthy discussion about it, the point of your proposed newsgroup is to
eliminate talk about drugs from what you see as a rave discussion group.
I don't really think that your inability to ignore things you don't like
about the rave scene should justify the creation of a new newsgroup.
S
--
email: kas...@kfs.org
URL: http://www.kfs.org/~kashka
Wear More Dance Less :( For now...
mictlantecutli
tew...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:
>
>One interesting point is whether music is itself addictive, and if it
>can be considered a drug. Volume and repetition of sound certainly
>affect the listener physically
good point! i myself have noticed that the music at raves
(particularly trance) is alluring and elicits very specific effects,
even if heard at low volumes out of context...subjects begin to
slightly bounce in place and move their hands about at slightly below
head level...subjects heard to say, "wow i was wiped out but then dj
whoever came on and that hardcore just drove me back to the speakers
full of energy"...i think more research should be done into the
pharmaceutical effects of music...
*EXTRA*
MEA (music enforcement agency) officials busted an illicit music
manufacturing lab and diverted a shipment of high-grade vinyl headed
for san francisco. a spokesman claimed the records to be "goa"
quality, but our sources confirmed allegations that it was "just more
of that deep house crap". one opinionated raver said, "man, why can't
they catch some of those jungle dealers? that stuff sucks!" more
details later at 10pm when the map point opens.
Mark S-D
>good point! i myself have noticed that the music at raves
>(particularly trance) is alluring and elicits very specific effects,
>even if heard at low volumes out of context...subjects begin to
>slightly bounce in place and move their hands about at slightly below
>head level...subjects heard to say, "wow i was wiped out but then dj
>whoever came on and that hardcore just drove me back to the speakers
>full of energy"...i think more research should be done into the
>pharmaceutical effects of music...
>
numerous others, who knows what strange and evil chemistry is going on
as these hypnotic beats play. I think the music at these drug free raves
should be turned down, real low, just in case drugs are being excreted.
--
| \/ | ____| \
| .. |____ | |) )
| \/ | ____| / m...@marksd.demon.co.uk
Kashka
Kashka (kas...@mimir.com) wrote:
: The question at hand is not whether one should or shouldn't organise drug free
: raves or whether or not the internet needs the proposed newsgroup.
^ Duuuuh. I meant "but". :)
Insickness
> The question at hand is not whether one should or shouldn't organise
> drug free raves or whether or not the internet needs the proposed
> a place for people to discuss things that are not covered by existing
> newsgroups already. From what I understand, nobody was telling you
> not to discuss drug-free raves on this newsgroup, in fact, alot of
people
> here seemed to be interested in a healthy discussion about it, the
> point of your proposed newsgroup is to eliminate talk about drugs from
> what you see as a rave discussion group. I don't really think that your
> inability to ignore things you don't like about the rave scene should
> justify the creation of a new newsgroup.
A newsgroup dedicated to drug-free raves is a great idea. It's not a
matter of not being able to discuss drug-free raves. There are almost as
many issues involved to not using drugs as there are to using drugs. A
constructive forum dedicated to this kind of things could help promote a
change in misconception that the only way to get high is using drugs. It
may also provide encouragement to people who are interested in
raving/techno and not getting into drugs. I would actively promote and
and be willing to help out with a constructive, non-elitist forum/mailing
list about techno and alternatives to drugs.
Christopher J. Moran
Kashka (kas...@mimir.com) likely wrote:
: The question at hand is not whether one should or shouldn't organise
: newsgroup. New newsgroups are normally created in order to provide a
: place for people to discuss things that are not covered by existing
: newsgroups already.
Basically, this has gone no where according to my intentions, but I'll
reply anyway. Yes, new groups are meant to be for topics not covered.
BUT, when groupd get polluted with stuff that most or many or even some
feel doesn't belong, a new group has to be created, sometimes. Remember
back to this past summer when people were bitching EVERY DAY about
'fake' raver infiltrating the NG? All everyone talked about was starting
a new group called alt.plur or something, stating that only 'real'
ravers would know what PLUR was. [of course, I didn't know what the
acronym meant at the time, and I concidered myself basically a real raver]
Well, I wish I wrote down names then to compare to those that are
dissing my idea... ;)
I guess my idea should have been alt.rave.drugless.moderated, then? The
point was to keep drug posts out, because there IS a strong rave
following that DOES think raves and drug aren't and shouldn't be
synonymous.
: as a rave discussion group. I don't really think that your inability
: to ignore things you don't like about the rave scene should justify
: the creation of a new newsgroup.
It's not about my inability to ignor. It's about this group tending to
TRY to portray a version of the rave scene that many don't think is
right, but all have to pay the consequences for, when raves become
either a mainstream 'show me the drugs' media blitz, or getting busted up
every time for fear of this false requirement to make a rave a rave.
peace out,
T-SNAKE
ps- anyway, I sort of retracted the idea by posting about an idea for a
drugless raves mailing list...and not one person has told me how I could
go about it...Maybe I'll just ask brian (?) at hyperreal.
Watcha Gonna Do!?! Watcha Gonna Do!?!
Christopher J. Moran (cmo...@elk.uvm.edu) wrote:
: So...who do you exclude? I hear it all the time about how different drug
: userss rank on other drugs of choice. E heads diss on crack heads, coke
: heads diss on Herion...et al.
: One of my friends has done coke in the past and now is a reletively heavy
: pot user, he has said namy times, "Man, people who use E are just
: stupid". I thin kthe divisin lines are stupid. I don't say shit like, not
: Coke or Heroin, but E and LSD are ok. I categorically dissallow use of
: all illicit drugs and alcohol at my events. Those who think that's stupid
: don't have to go. Those who are singing hallelluia, it's about time can
: all come and feel safe for once.
I agree with you a lot. The bullshit dissing from one
substance user to another is ridiculous. It cracks me up (no pun
intended). People, however, should be looking at their own behavior
with substances before they start slamming on others.
As for drug free raves, I think they are a really good thing.
Yet, I really don't care if people do drugs at raves just as I don't
care if the President inhales in the Oval Office. The issue here is
behavior. Some people need to learn to be discreet. When I see
people snorting coke or K on the dance floor, it pisses me off. I'm
not going to tell people that they can't do the substances because I
honestly believe it is their call. But considering the varying morals
people have regarding substance abuse, people should at least have the
courtesy to do it in the bathroom or some other private place. I
don't see why this is so hard for some people.
In addition, I like the fact that people try to throw drug
free parties because I get sick of going to raves that seem to cater
to the drug dealer instead of the party-goer. Keep the fucking
dealers out of the venue! I don't see why promoters should give them
the right to come in with the fucking attitude and force illegal
substances in everyones' face!
: : Raves are about acceptance and respect, not division.
Exactly! Which is why promoters should respect people enough
by keeping the dealers out of the parties and why users should go
someplace private.
: You'd be surrised how little respect I've gotten all my life for choosing
: NOT TO USE. I care about my body and my mind...excuuuuuse me!
Fuck those clowns! It's morons like that who are still
confused about their behavior. For the amount of talk they seem to do
glorifying the desirable effects while downplaying the negative afects
of drugs, you'd think they were fairly confident in their behavior.
But then someone comes along who doesn't use. It causes them to
realize that maybe their behavior isn't so smart and maybe not
everyone thinks it's cool. Easiest way to avoid this kinda drama is
to just tell the idiots you have a medical condition that wont allow
you to do substance X (once again, no pun intended). This gets them
off of your back pretty quickly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sandman [jmck...@skidmore.edu] | "I don't care if people hate my guts;
[msan...@cris.com] | I assume that most of them do. The
http://www.skidmore.edu/~jmckinne | important question is: 'What position
for a page without a petting zoo. | are they in to do about it?'"
| --William S. Burroughs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watcha Gonna Do!?! Watcha Gonna Do!?!
Jonathan Magid (j...@president.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: Would it be okay for you to say you want to rave with anybody who isn't
: gay? or straight? or Jewish? or Asian? No. I think pretty much everybody
: would condemn that attitude as racism or homophobia or straigh-bashing.
: In the case of racism, it's illegal (other laws vary with jurisdiction).
This has got to be one of the most far-fetched comparisons
I've ever seen. The point is people of different races or sexual
preferences pose absolutely no threat to anyone. You can't link
violent behavior to being Asian but you certainly can link it to
Crystal Meth. You can link hostile vibes and potential conflicts to
rivaling dealers. The list can go on. Overall, drugs have had a
negative affect as of late. It's time for people to run a check on
their behavior regardless of this whole substance v. party issue. The
facts are that people have some serious problems and don't always have
the common respect to do their substances privately. Attitudes have
also led to shootings occuring at some of the more frequented clubs
(eg. Vinyl in NYC). Everytime I went to Vinyl, all I saw were a bunch
of kids doing hard drugs and bringing attitude. The turn of events
didn't surprise me in the least. When you link behavior like this to
racial/sexual backgrounds, I'll pay more attention to this kind of
argument. But you cannot!
: In the case of drug users, it's okay. Why? Because the overall society
: says that people who use illegal drugs are *bad*. There no good.
: Unredeemable. Rotten to the core. In fact, there after you're *children*!
: (Oops. I've lost control. :) )
It's not that people who use drugs are bad. There are many
people who do all kinds of substances and you wouldn't be able
to tell if yout met them. The difference is that they do it in
private. In regards to the children comment, many dealers are after
children. I knew a couple that made it an issue to try and get young
raver kiddies started on coke. Luckilly, those clowns were chased
away by the police. Face it! Drugs have brought in a very negative
element to raves. I wish this wasn't the case but it is.
: Now, my question is this: There are other "drugs" than those that are on
: list of no-no's. Many of these drugs are perfectly legal, prescribed
: by doctors and change the consciousness of the user. SSRI anti-depressants
: (Prozac, Paxcil, Zoloft), Benzoadimine tranquilizers (Valium), Tricyclics
: (lithium), and Amphetamines (like Ritalin), are all legal ways (when
: prescribed by your physician) to change your consciousness from "bad"
: states to "good" and "productive" states. Are these people free to come
: to your raves? What about people who've drunk a quadruple-expresso (which
: in my experience is one of the strongest and least pleasant drug combinations)?
: Or a bunch of super-sweet candy?
Another ridiculous comparison. When someone is perscribed a
drug in order to remain healthy, they are not the same as someone
doing lines of coke, K, or crystal.
: You say you want your patrons to "feel safe", so it sounds like you have
: the same idea. But in my experience, the set of intoxicated people
: and the group of violent people is not one and the same. I've never been
: hurt in any ways by anyone on drugs, and although I'm certainly not
: saying that it's not possible that drugged people are violent (certainly
: I've seen drunk people be more aggressive than normal, and that may
: also be true for cocaine users, but I really haven't met very many), I
: don't think that the use of drugs is an indicator that they will be hurtful.
: In fact, I've received many very nice backrubs from strangers on E, so
: I can't complain. :)
So are you willing to allow the random "let's make a buck off
of these dumb kids" dealer bring their attitude to a party in order to
sell E? I'm not saying all dealers are like this because that's not
true. However, all the successful dealers that I've known or met are
all stupid, self centered, hard assholes that have no business going
to a rave other than to exploit people. They make the scene feel
unsafe. The people who decide to do their drugs in front of
everyones' faces make the scene feel unsafe for many people. It is
not so much the drug use that brings an uncomfortable vibe as much as
the behavior that sometimes revolves around drugs which does. This is
what makes drug free raves sound desirable for a lot of people. If
you want to go to a drug free rave and do drugs, fine. Just have the
common decency to keep out of plain sight.
: Now we come to the heart of the matter. You've been shat upon, and now
: you want to shit back. How much of human tragedy follows from that- someone's
: dumped on you, so you want dump on someone else.
You could stray from the issues at hand by blasting someone
for their personal experiences. Yet you are not noticing some of the
problems that I've mentioned above. If promoters were to make it a
little harder for drugs to leak into their events and use security to
keep the use out of the general ravers' eyes, perhaps it would be a
little harder for the events to be labeled as drug events. Over the
short ammount of time I've been going to raves, I've noticed a great
increase in the public use of drugs. I'm sure you've noticed this as
well. It doesn't have to be like this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sandman [jmck...@skidmore.edu] | "I'll say any god damn thing I want!"
[msan...@cris.com] | --Shaft
http://www.skidmore.edu/~jmckinne |
for moral corrupting info. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward T.
On 24 Feb 1997 15:03:13 GMT, jmck...@saims.skidmore.edu (Watcha Gonna
Do!?! Watcha Gonna Do!?!) wrote:
>Overall, drugs have had a
>negative affect as of late. It's time for people to run a check on
>their behavior regardless of this whole substance v. party issue. The
>facts are that people have some serious problems and don't always have
>the common respect to do their substances privately.
Why would you want this ? So you feel people should smoke sigarettes
out of your sight, drink beer in secret, etc... ?
Sigarettes and alcohol are also drugs, but they are widely accepted.
In some scenes the same can be said of coke or hero, it all depends on
your own level of tolerance for other peoples habits. Just accept
that other people drink different drinks, smoke a different brand of
sigarettes and take E iso vitamin-C - what they do they do...no
business of you.
> Attitudes have
>also led to shootings occuring at some of the more frequented clubs
>(eg. Vinyl in NYC). Everytime I went to Vinyl, all I saw were a bunch
>of kids doing hard drugs and bringing attitude. The turn of events
>didn't surprise me in the least. When you link behavior like this to
>racial/sexual backgrounds, I'll pay more attention to this kind of
>argument. But you cannot!
It's a lame argument as it says more of the tension in that particular
scene than about anything related to drugs. In Amsterdam, the scene I
hang-out, you do not feel this tension. OK, so Coke is known to make
the user agressive - XTC is known to make a person exactly the
opposite, friendly. Agressive people and groups are more likely to
take Coke, but again you just can't blame agression on drugs.
>It's not that people who use drugs are bad. There are many
>people who do all kinds of substances and you wouldn't be able
>to tell if yout met them.
You can say that again :-).
>In regards to the children comment, many dealers are after
>children. I knew a couple that made it an issue to try and get young
>raver kiddies started on coke. Luckilly, those clowns were chased
>away by the police. Face it! Drugs have brought in a very negative
>element to raves. I wish this wasn't the case but it is.
Well then....what is the answer to the drugs problem ? Is it a heavy
police crack-down ? You will agree with me that this has been done
many times in the past 20 years - every time with more cops and more
costs to society. Even most policemen will say to you that the battle
is un-winnable.
Obviously the current tactics are not working and its time for a
change.
If drugs would be legalized there is no reason for drug-dealers to
sell at raves....there is no reason for drug-dealers to sell to
kids...there is just no reason for drug-dealers ! The profits will be
out of the market. The reason for a drug-dealer to sell drugs is to
make loads of money - if you remove that reason, there is no use in
pushing this stuff on the innocent.
>When someone is perscribed a
>drug in order to remain healthy, they are not the same as someone
>doing lines of coke, K, or crystal.
No, but if I knew what coke did to me, because I would get decent
information, I should be free to use it. It's my life and it's my
body - if I feel like doing coke (and btw I don't - yet)...
>If promoters were to make it a
>little harder for drugs to leak into their events and use security to
>keep the use out of the general ravers' eyes, perhaps it would be a
>little harder for the events to be labeled as drug events. Over the
>short ammount of time I've been going to raves, I've noticed a great
>increase in the public use of drugs. I'm sure you've noticed this as
>well. It doesn't have to be like this.
You can do what you want to keep drugs out of raves - do a full cavity
search, for all I care, but you will NEVER be able to keep people from
doing drugs that way. It's a lost battle - quite apart from the fact
that there are and will be drugs that are NOT harmfull and should be
tolerated anyway.
The increase you see in the amount of drugs at parties is just proof
that people no longer buy all that shit about 'just say no'. Millions
of people take E every weekend and are having a great time because of
it.
Christian radicals have been trying for centuries to keep people from
having a great time (earth is for working, heaven is your reward).
Stop believing that anti-drugs propaganda - it is just NOT TRUE.
Even if you do believe all drugs in existence are bad for you, you
will have to admit there will definitely be drugs designed in our
future that are fun and still harmless. Its time to start facing the
problem and not ignoring it by prohibition. Prohibition is there just
for organized crime to make money.
I agree with all of you (I assume) that we don't want people's lives
destroyed, we definitely don't want our OWN lives destroyed, but
please agree with me that a world with more police and more
restrictions is not the way we want to spend our old age.
Edward.
Mark S-D
Would this thread have been quite as interesting if it were on a
different newsgroup with fewer people reading it ? I wonder....
....anyway, my opinion has changed slightly since someone brought the
fact about "drug wars" into it, it's a shame but it's true. I still
believe it's wrong to insist that the trouble element comes from the
drug users alone, you get violent people regardless of if they have
taken anything or not - some drugs might make them more aggresive some
will make them more relaxed. It's not that simple. But yes, the drug
money makers are more likely to make trouble. I've seen it happen, so if
you can get rid of them then you going to be safer.
I still don't think another newsgroup is a good idea though, sorry. The
only thing we don't have in common is the drugs issue, how many posts
have there been on alt.rave/alt.techno about drugs ? Very little until
this came up, it's been much more about the music than anything else.
And we are having a good discussion about it on this newsgroup already,
different opinions and not many insults on the whole. having said that,
if it's found that a lot of people are interested.....go on and do it !
Insickness
> Stop believing that anti-drugs propaganda - it is just NOT TRUE.
You're right. I don't believe any of my friends who say they've gone to
rehab after struggling with heroin and cocain addictions. I don't believe
them when they say they'll be struggling with these addictions for the
rest
of their lives. I don't believe that people have really died from drugs.
I
don't believe that there are heroin addicts that have run out of veins and
shoot up in the neck or penis. I don't believe that a drug like E can
lead
to other drugs. I don't believe that E is one of the dirtiest drugs and
that
it's stepped on by coke, heroin and a variety of other drugs. All it is is
everyone trying to keep you from having a good time. (Apologies for the
satire, I'm just trying to bring a point across)
My suggestion would be if you are considering doing MDMA (ecstacy) or any
other drug that you research it first (like at a library). To dismiss
clinical studies as anti-drug propaganda is foolish. Consider the costs
and risks of the drugs you decide to take.
>Its time to start facing the problem and not ignoring it by prohibition.
>Prohibition is there just for organized crime to make money.
>
>I agree with all of you (I assume) that we don't want people's lives
>destroyed, we definitely don't want our OWN lives destroyed, but
>please agree with me that a world with more police and more
>restrictions is not the way we want to spend our old age.
I don't think it's about more police. I believe this discussion started
about a proposal for another newgroup. This is quite the opposite to
policing. It's about people voluntarily choosing to not do drugs out of
their own free will.
Tom Ewing
>On 24 Feb 1997 15:03:13 GMT, jmck...@saims.skidmore.edu (Watcha Gonna
>Do!?! Watcha Gonna Do!?!) wrote:
>>In regards to the children comment, many dealers are after
>>children. I knew a couple that made it an issue to try and get young
>>raver kiddies started on coke. Luckilly, those clowns were chased
>>away by the police. Face it! Drugs have brought in a very negative
>>element to raves. I wish this wasn't the case but it is.
>Obviously the current tactics are not working and its time for a
>change.
>
>If drugs would be legalized there is no reason for drug-dealers to
>sell at raves....there is no reason for drug-dealers to sell to
>kids...there is just no reason for drug-dealers !
If drugs were legalised, all that would happen is the drug dealers
would also be legalised - in other words, the big companies which
currently promote addiction to legal drugs would be able to put their
promotional and marketing clout behind grass and E. If you think that
the big companies don;t want kids hooked on their stuff, then you need
to look at some of the ways they've been promoting alcohol and tobacco
to under=age users. Profit is everything whether a product is legal or
illegal, and to think that legalisation would lead to some sort of
utopia is just silly. Legalisation is probably the only option, but
it's still just moving control of the drug trade from large criminal
organisations to large organisations whose similar behaviour happens
to be legitimised by the world money markets :).
>I agree with all of you (I assume) that we don't want people's lives
>destroyed, we definitely don't want our OWN lives destroyed, but
>please agree with me that a world with more police and more
>restrictions is not the way we want to spend our old age.
This is the great point in favour of legalisation. When we take drugs
we are making a choice about our bodies and minds and are harming
no-one but ourselves. We should have the right to do this. The role of
legislation and government should be to prevent us from hurting each
other (physically or IMO economically), not stop us from potentially
hurting ourselves.
Tom,
tew...@netcomuk.co.uk
...welcomes your comments.
Watcha Gonna Do!?! Watcha Gonna Do!?!
Tom Ewing (tew...@netcomuk.co.uk) wrote:
: On Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:53:09 GMT, edw...@darkwood.demon.nl (Edward
: T.) wrote:
: If drugs were legalised, all that would happen is the drug dealers
: would also be legalised - in other words, the big companies which
: currently promote addiction to legal drugs would be able to put their
: promotional and marketing clout behind grass and E. If you think that
: the big companies don;t want kids hooked on their stuff, then you need
: to look at some of the ways they've been promoting alcohol and tobacco
: to under=age users. Profit is everything whether a product is legal or
: illegal, and to think that legalisation would lead to some sort of
: utopia is just silly. Legalisation is probably the only option, but
: it's still just moving control of the drug trade from large criminal
: organisations to large organisations whose similar behaviour happens
: to be legitimised by the world money markets :).
There is a way around this. Drugs could be legalized but they
could only be sold by the US government. Advertising probably
wouldn't be tolerated by most of the parental groups. Since most
recreational drugs are cheap to make, the government could sell them
at extremely low prices. This would make it pointless for a dealer to
exist because they'd never be able to turn a good profit. Proceeds
from governmental drug sales could go into rehab programs. This is
merely a hypothetical scenario I'm presenting for arguments sake.
Anyone care to take it further?
: This is the great point in favour of legalisation. When we take drugs
: we are making a choice about our bodies and minds and are harming
: no-one but ourselves. We should have the right to do this. The role of
: legislation and government should be to prevent us from hurting each
: other (physically or IMO economically), not stop us from potentially
: hurting ourselves.
Well, here is where another argument comes in. What about the
drug addicts who have children? A lot of people will argue that
children/families are hurt by addiction. Alcoholism is a prime
example of a legal suubstance that can turn a family upside-down with
problems. The moral/ legal question then becomes whether or not this
should be tolerated and whether it is the fault of the availability of
the substance or the fault of the user. In our society, it's easier
to put the blame on something else. What people should do more often
is FORGET about placing the fucking blame somewhere and just deal with
the problem! Yet, this is not part of American culture unfortunately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sandman [jmck...@skidmore.edu] | "I'm a busy guy, ya know."
[msan...@cris.com] | "Just relax, independent
http://www.skidmore.edu/~jmckinne | businessmen/women will take
for Sex, Drugs, and Clinton | care of everything."
re-election info. | --Claude
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lonzabiol...@gmail.com
Wickr i.d : diceras