Because rave promoters know that Ecstasy causes the body temperature in a user to rise and as a result causes the user to become very thirsty, many rave promoters facilitate and profit from flagrant drug use at rave parties or events by selling over-priced bottles of water and charging entrance fees to 'chill-rooms' where users can cool down.

You'd think maybe people who were dancing at an all night party would, you know, not want to drink a lot of alcohol, need bottles of water, and want to chill out, irrespective of whether or not they were on drugs, wouldn't you? Furthermore, I've been to a LOT of raves and I have never ever seen a separate fee charged for access to a chill room!

I have never been charged extra to get into a chill room before either, but what is said there about water is true in many situations. I've seen the water profiteering as shows many times before, and its always pissed me off. It is often rigged specifically to get as much money out of the hands of people at the expense of basic life functions as possible, and the people who fall through the hole are most often the ones experimenting with drugs.

If there is any legislation in regard to raves I would have liked to see -- as opposed to what we wound up with -- it would have been something that protected safety and rights, not provided a way to target specific cultural communities for eradication. Regulations regarding the availability of water would have been the first order of business.

If there's anything that's important in an environment with a high number of people, especially where the people are very active, its water. If you are charging $4 for a bottle of water at a rave or a club, and there is not another (free) source available, you should be fined and thrown into jail. That's a specific issue I'd consider myself a "hardliner" on.

Its not a luxury thing. Its not an enjoyment thing. Its a basic life function thing. You must provide me with a place to pee, suitable air to breathe (which I think of more as an occupancy thing than a non-smoking thing), and water so that I don't suddenly drop dead from dehydration. If we legislate rules for bathrooms, no-smoking zones and occupancy limits, then sign me up for the rest of the basic life function and safety package please...

When I'm emperor, all clubs will be forced to have a water fountain by the bathrooms. All raves will be forced to have a water spigot somewhere. Anyone with a container will be allowed to fill it. Any club owner or rave promoter who tells someone they cannot refill their water bottle will be arrested on the spot and tossed into a Guantanamo Bay Prison for crimes against humanity.

I fully agree with what you were saying otherwise. Its also a good point in time to remind people that the Democrats where behind the CDA.

(Disclaimer: Rattle is not affiliated with any political party, militia, agency, or NGO. Rattle plans to file Trademark on the phrase "When I'm emperor" for usage in his rants.)

If we legislate rules for bathrooms, no-smoking zones and occupancy limits, then sign me up for the rest of the basic life function and safety package please...

When I'm emperor, all clubs will be forced to have a water fountain by the bathrooms. All raves will be forced to have a water spigot somewhere.

If you accept that its reasonable to regulate some of these other things, I think its reasonable to require that drinking water be made available. I seriously doubt that the expense would be prohibitive. Most good bars give out free coke and water to people who have been drinking anyway.

If you accept that its reasonable to regulate some of these other things, I think its reasonable to require that drinking water be made available. I seriously doubt that the expense would be prohibitive. Most good bars give out free coke and water to people who have been drinking anyway.

Some of the rules I don't like. No smoking in California and NYC for instance.. But that battle has clearly been lost. I can live with it, up until the point I get lung cancer and die.

There are a number of regulations on the books that are damn important and have seriously positive effects, but are very easy to overlook. Aside from when Great White recently killed a hundred people with their pyrotechnics, we have not had a mass of people die in a venue for a long time. That's no small thing, and it comes down to simple things like fire codes that govern which way doors swing, how many exists must be present and how they can be locked, occupancy limits, building materials, etc. Minor stuff, but its regulated, and it stops disasters from happening and saves lives. There are specific cases where its abused, but they can usually be addressed.

The key thing is that legislation that protects safety should ensure rights, not eradicate them. As long as we can continue to assemble, I don't have a problem with taking steps to ensure we assemble safely. I have a big problem with the call for safety being abused to push through laws that limit rights and target specific communities.

It should be noted that legislation is not the only answer to the problem. Venues and shows must be insured. Try to insure a show with 1000+ people without having security and medical personnel on hand...

Insurance companies are also part of the problem. Try organizing a rap show sometime... Due to the violence that has occurred at rap shows, the insurance rates are incredibly high. Its why you don't see many of them. They are almost impossible to organize without some hardcore backing.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The default reaction to the Rave bust in Utah from a number of people has been of the form "blah, blah, Republicans, blah, blah, Bush, blah, blah, Police State." This is more then a little annoying. Raves have been targetted federally by a bipartisan coallition led by Democrats. Yes, Virginia, Democrats have jack boots too.

In 2002 Democratic senators Biden, Leahy, and Durbin along with Republicans Grassley and Hatch proposed the Rave Act of 2002. Biden was the primary sponsor.

This law included a findings section, essentially a list of justifications, which is basically a collection of paranoid rantings that have little or no connection to reality. For example:

Many rave promoters go to great lengths to try to portray their events as alcohol-free parties that are safe places for young adults to go to dance with friends, and some even go so far as to hire off-duty, uniformed police officers to patrol outside of the venue to give parents the impression that the event is safe.

There is no way they might actually have a legitimate interest in hiring security guards!

That right there is the point at which you can tell the reporter at Fox had nary a clue about that which he speaks. Rave promoters have every incentive to have solid security at the events, simply because it keeps the loons who would otherwise be wearing illunimated bongs around their necks away from the venue. To decide that they couldn't possibly want security there makes a whole lot of assumptions about what rave promoters have in mind, and the most obvious assumption is that rave promoters want as many drugs on-site as possible. Aside from being ludicrous on the face of it (because where there's lots of drugs, there's generally lots of overdoses, which is very, very bad for a party) I suspect it constitutes a form of prior restraint. It treats party promoters as if it were a foregone conclusion that they're basically high-volume drug dealers. Anyone from the "rave scene" can tell you this is absolutely not the case, and if they'd step back for a moment and nicely ask a few people, the "scene" generally has no problems with pointing fingers at the few promoters who do get that idea that hosting a party just so they can sell drugs is okay.

Ravers despise junkies and recklessly destructive behaviour as much if not more than any other counter-culture, simply because of the splinter of people whose lives they've watched go down the tubes as a result of the aforementioned junkies and rapacious drug dealers.

Dagmar wrote:

There is no way they might actually have a legitimate interest in hiring security guards!

That right there is the point at which you can tell the reporter at Fox had nary a clue about that which he speaks.

That quote wasn't from the article, it was from the findings section of the RAVE act. You should give the article a read. I think you'll find it suprisingly favorable.