Printable View
It's sad that so many people need drugs in order to have fun...
I attend raves for the pure energy of the music, dancing and friends.....thats my drug.
Ravers who attend raves solely for the purpose of drugs, give drug-free ravers like me a very bad name. :(
**** all that drug **** this goes out to all you partying sober - MC Flipside
The next thing to go will be concerts "for our own protection." Why is this paticular group being singled out? Everytime someone says "oh that dosen't apply to me" it gives regulating commisions more room to operate. Eventually, it will be you.
Actually it would appear as though they left that suitably ambiguous:Quote:
Originally posted here by Palemoon
Well lets look at the letter of the law it targets Rave so then legally speaking a Raven would be different than a Rave as the law reads.
So, technically, they could "target" someone with a largeish event (which they eye-ball guesstimate, actually) where any sort of "electronic music" was played. And yes, there is precedent that they're eyeballs are somehow calibrated enough that they use them to bill events based on "population" (or, specifically "estimated population").Code:SECTION 1. Section 53087.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:
53087.6. (a) As used in this section, "rave party" means any
electronic music dance event of the type commonly referred to as rave
parties that may be attended by 500 or more persons.
The next action I'd expect on this law would be the deletion of the "commonly referred to as rave parties" in natural response to terminology changes... followed by the removal of "electronic dance music" to simply "music" as that changes or is too specific. Eventually it will become "any event attended by X or more persons."
<edit>
Now, if we approach this more like we might in a good game of chess and "think several more moves ahead," so to speak... how does/would/might this extrapolate out? Can anyone please tell me how this doesn't apply to basically everyone? (and you people in other states aren't "safe" either - think about it)
</edit>
yea we ravers are known terrorists and must be stop. The spread of love and happiness and dancing all night and getting to know our fellow human beings has gone to far.
This divided states of embarresment will not let us have fun
euclid brought up an interesting point in a round about way...
anyone remember this one...?
sorry, i couldn't help it.Quote:
we can dance if we want to....
we can leave your friends behind
cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance...
well they're are no friends of mine...
i say, we can go where we want to...
a place where they will never find...
and we can act like we come from out of this world...
leave the real one far behind...
...and we can dance.
omg that anti-rave website had me ****ing weak. Props to whomever created that.
I'm rather surprised you all are concerned with this. I seriously doubt this passes in Cal. And if it does it will more than likely be overturned. They may pass a weakened version that makes the owners semi-responsible for the bahavior of their patrons, but this is a bit strong to make it in Cal.
Party on guys, but leave the drugs out of it. You may think you are only hurting yourself, but you are hurting others as well.
Um..that's kind of the point..if people aren't concerned with it, it runs the risk of getting quietly passed. History repeating itself, etc etcQuote:
I'm rather surprised you all are concerned with this. I seriously doubt this passes in Cal....
This isn't strictly about raves, partying drug free or whatever..it's about your rights and your freedom.
Ah... you're right... what was I thinking... not like California doesn't have many other similiar laws, starting with forbidding smoking in places of work... moving to not being able to smoke withing 15 feet of the door to a public establishment... moving onwards to banning smoking in barsQuote:
Originally posted here by Reality
I'm rather surprised you all are concerned with this. I seriously doubt this passes in Cal.
Yes, I'm obviously very far off-base here... thanks for the reality check.
<edit>
Point is, this is an assembly bill... I'm not really sure anyone will have much of a choice. (I must confess I'm still a little unclear as to if this has passed or is about-to-pass or...)
And yes folks... it is illegal to smoke inside any public establishment including bars anywhere in California - though they are a couple "single establishment exception," it's actually a law.
</edit>