After the rave culture bust of 2001, Austin remains a dry county for electronic events deemed *gasp* rave. Although, there are a few here and there. Austin, the music capital of the world does not allow free music expression. Why do you think there has been a double standard to these events vs. ACL or another type of festival? Obviously, party promoters didn't do Austin any favors, nor all the rave events turned day care centers. However, the only recorded death at a rave event that I can remember is at Pulse. Of the countless concerts Austin has had, I imagine there has been a least one death due to drugs, or heat exhaustion. I can only guess that this had to do with licenses and lots of cash that the local municipal governments wanted a piece of. However, even when offered loads of incentives, security, etc, events such as EDC was barred from taking place.

Other countries have also followed lead, by passing legislation that bans public assembly with electronic music. The Czech's government also clashed with ravers calling them "dangerous."



The U.S. attempted to pass the rave act, then passed the illicit drug anti-proliferation act in 2003. This really was a direct response to the drug ecstasy, not so much the surrounding scene that accompanied it. Like the marijuana laws that were passed due to irrational scares of the drug's effects, little evidence was offered to support why this legislation was needed. Instead of holding parents and their offspring accountable, the bill held the event promoters/property owners responsible. Although, they were legally responsible anyways for everyone at those events.

So what gives in America regarding the War on fun? Why do you think Austin remains dry to these events vs. say California, Florida, or other progressive societies? How does that clash with Austin's so-called openess?

those look like the guys who were patrolling zenfest uno. they were fuckin dudes up.

a guy od'd and died right behind me at zenfest during 'silence,' which...at the time was my gay asses faaaavourite song. had it been a song i didn't like, i would have probably paid more attention and been really bothered.

This is a very interesting point you have brought up.

I recently got my dad to get tickets for ACL because I had never gone and figured it would be fun to check it out with mi papa as I'm new to the supposed "Music Capital of World" and all. But If I had known how many people were going to be at this event - freaking 1000s, I probably would have passed at a free invitation. I think it's cool that ACL gets all these big names out for one show, but who has the $$$ to afford this festival at $300 a pass, let alone $160 for just one day? So knowing this will probably be my first and last ACL show I will attend I decided to check out tour dates for some of my fave bands hoping I could check them out at their OWN show. However, to my dismay, their prior and future tour dates in Austin were either at ACL or SXSW. Austin is not what it slogan claims to be. It's just two major festivals with very few big name musicians playing small shows. It's not only the electronic scene that is suffering but the rock scene as well.

So when you ask why the government is not allowing us to have fun, you have to ask yourself who is losing from us throwing raves? Who's not getting their cut?

There haven't been many recorded deaths, but I remember something like 5 people dying at the first rave I went to in 2000. There is a double standard, but that is because (in all honesty) when we were all ravers and doing our thing at the turn of the century, one of the appeals was drugs. No ifs ands or buts about it. The music was good and amazing, but I know the biggest draw was that you could do drugs and the people putting them together didn't really give a shit to an extent that they should have.

In all fairness, land owners and promoters were held accountable based on a legal principle called vicarious liability. Although they could have been drug free, against drugs, and this-and-that all positives, but the fact that they turned away from the obvious reckless use of drugs made them liable for the actions of their guests and customers.

Senator Biden introduced the Rave Act and it didn't get out of committee, so he took out some of the stupid shit in it, and got it as an amendment to the Amber Alert Act under the name "The Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act." That name raises a few less eyebrows, congress doesn't read everything, it looks good on paper, etc.

The act itself reads:

"A BILL to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purposes. "

That's a really high burden of proof needed to prosecute someone under the IDAPA. Let me break it down...

A BILL to prohibit...

an individual from knowingly

opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place (this applies to land owners and concert promoters) (it applies to any warehouse, field, alley, house, boat, etc. / ANY place)

from any place for the purpose of (for the purpose of / where the purpose is...)

manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance, and for other purposes."

In other words, as a promoter, to be prosecuted under the IDAPA would mean that you have put something together anywhere for the purpose of making drugs, selling or giving drugs, or taking drugs. That's really really hard to prove. People on drugs at a rave alone isn't even enough evidence to have a trial. However, people on drugs at a rave (to the point where it's obvious) and the promoter does nothing about those people is enough evidence. After that, it's a subjective opinion of the promoter should have known. If it is obvious to a grand jury, then it should have been obvious to a promoter.

Austin... whatever. Trends come and go in Austin and raves were one of them.

Yup. I don't know what kind of raves they're throwing in CA and FL but the rave scene will NEVER be what it used to be. When something similar comes around it will be something completely new and different.

I have a feeling this has all been said before...

And seriously, to some degree I like where things are now and where they seem to be going. When I was at Tiesto last week, do you know how few candy ravers I saw there? Sure, I saw people rolling, but I didn't see the mob that plagued things for a few years. That's the fact, and I hope I am interpreting it correctly when I say that right now is a good period of transition to where a whole group of new people are getting interested in music they've never heard before.

I saw Tiesto in Austin last year and saw glimpses of the rave scene I remembered. The lack of candy ravers always helps.

Although I'm not a HUGE fan of psy-trance music, I have to say I am always impressed with the crowd Austin's psy-trance parties draw out. People drink but don't get belligerent and I always manage to have an intellectual conversation with at least one person. The psy-trance events are the closest event I can compare to the way raves made me feel.

Jesus, people are responding to my posts intelligently. I should have been talking to you all.

Thanks again for the responses. I would agree that the rave scene was a trend not just for Austin, but America as a whole. It is great that San Antonio is having good events that are "drama" free for the most part. I still do not think alcohol has any place at a rave event. That can cause loss dehydration pretty quick. I always wondered why the Austin Music Hall served during events. It looked...off.

I still think it was the wrong move to hold or further bolster the laws against the promoters and venues. If ACL was treated like raves were, it would be shut down every year for the same reasons. It really comes down to personal responsibility which lies with the user and the irresponsible parents. I personally would have locked the parents and/or user up imho. I also think the state was looking for a cut of the profits and was trying to secure that as well.

However, that is all moot now with the way things are currently. It will be interesting to see how civil liberties progress with the next ten years in America. We have been eroding them for the last six years(actually eroding them since I have been on this earth), hopefully someone can reverse that. Be it, Ron Paul or someone else. Glory be the day, when we end the 60's backlash. If you listened to some conservatives, you would think we are still putting flowers in our hair and holding hands.

Responsible ravers over the age of 21 should be able to drink whatever they feel like at a party. Have you ever been to an underground?

Great post, Benz. I'm surprised. I'll put my $0.02 in later.

Word.

And I swear to fucking god, if I hear the word 'dehydration' one more time in my fucking life..... lol

DEHYDRATION!
DEHYDRATION!
DEHYDRATION!

dun dun dun

see what happens when you play nice and not attack people. good job it was a pleasure reading today

Fair, enough. I have learned not to feed the drama. Not to mention, it wasn't about any of the people on this board. Kinda like shaking your fist at God type deal. A general venting which I should have clarified a bit better.

Responsible and raver used in the same sentence is what I found funny. Sure, you can slam a six pack and dance the night away. I guess? Then you start throwing other drugs into the mix and responsibility goes by the way side. Not that it's any different from the bar scene or a festival.

I have been to a few renegades back in the day, but not a full on underground event.

Maybe you should redefine your definition of a raver. I would consider anyone that went to more than a few parties a raver. That is regardless of their choice to take drugs or not. Slamming a sixer and dancing is what a lot of people actually like to do. This is proved through the the success of non-EDM dance clubs, discotheques, rodeos, for the last hundred years or so. The music playing doesn't matter. If I am legal to drink I should be able to drink at an electronic music event.

Note: If you take ecstacy and get drunk at the same time, you are stupid.

Fuck, I missed the memo.

Hey now, them theres fightin words...

Then there are ALOT of stupid people out there. Like I said, your choice.

My point is, the abundance of stupid people in the world should not be reason to prevent responsible people from enjoying alcohol. If someone dies from dehydration, maybe they should have been smart enough to drink water.

Plus alcohol sales make tons of moolah for the club.

I think you missed more than the memo....

I am not for taking anyone's rights away. You are free to be a stupid as you would like. The last thing I go for at a "rave" would be alcohol. Point taken. Topic finished.

Oh snap...