Raves

Reason.tv: Ravers vs. The Man—CA Bans LED Gloves and Pacifiers

|

Can you ban a style of music? California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma learned the hard way that doing so might not be so easy when she tried to ban electronic rave music.

"We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music," said Ma. "Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn't really know what was going on."

Despite the inability to ban rave music outright, Ma was able to squelch aspects of rave culture like LED gloves and pacifiers by keeping the pressure on event organizers with Assembly Bill 74 (formerly the "Anti-Raves Act" ), which became law on Oct. 9, 2011 when CA Governor Jerry Brown signed it.

The Assemblywoman first became concerned with raves when a 15-year-old girl named Sasha Rodriguez died at the popular Los Angeles rave, The Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC).

EDC, a giant festival of electronic music, dancing and lights, was held in Los Angeles for the past 13 years, attracting hundreds of thousands of participants and generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for the Los Angeles economy.  When Rodriguez died of an apparent ecstasy overdose, the LA Coliseum banned the event, which subsequently moved to Las Vegas for its 2011 festival.

Much of the political backlash against raves began in 2002, when then-Senator Joe Biden proposed the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy, or RAVE Act, which he attached to popular bill targeting child abduction.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller and Paul Detrick. Field produced by Alex Manning, Kyle Walker and Paul Feine.

Approximately 5:77 minutes.

Go to reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

198 responses to “Reason.tv: Ravers vs. The Man—CA Bans LED Gloves and Pacifiers

  1. Approximately 5:77 minutes.

    Shouldn’t that be six minutes, 17 seconds?

    1. We use metric time.

      1. Remember this time people, 80 past 2 on April 47th, it’s the dawn of a new enlightenment.

        1. The Year Zero.

          1. This shit is just funny.

            1. Why is it that California is so desperate on making itself the shittiest state in the union? This is like that movie with Kevin Bacon and dancing, only its not some podunk town in nebraska but an entire fucking state on the left coast!?!

              1. It’s like the GOP gained total control of California, only they’re using the elected Democrats with mind-control machines.

                1. It’s almost as if Democrats think they can make any aspect of your life their business to control!

                2. “Mr. FIFY|10.13.11 @ 1:40AM|#It’s like the GOP gained total control of California, only they’re using the elected Democrats with mind-control machines.”
                  Or maybe the GOP is not the party of bluenoses you assume it is? Here in Kalifornia, I find Republicans more open to the idea of decriminalization of drugs than the nanny-goat busybody DemonicRats. It is the DemonicRats who will never voluntarily give up a locus of control like the drug laws give them.

          2. Panic in Year Zero

            (Because we need a family with Ray Milland as Dad and Frankie Avalon as the son.)

            1. It’s like MST3K, only without.

    2. No, that’s the new code phrase for 9-9-9.

  2. I don’t understand. If they worried about ravers dying of Ecstasy overdoses, why don’t they just ban Ecstasy? That’ll totally stop people from doing it, right?

    1. well, that’s my hearty belly-laugh for the day.

    2. Why not go whole hog and ban lawbreaking?

      1. Indeed. As someone once pointed out, laws are way too complicated. Better to just have one law making all crimes illegal.

        1. Brilliant! And we could imbue law enforcement with the discretion to determine whether, in any given case, it’s really a crime. Like when cops catch hot chicks having sex in public, while snorting coke off of each other. That’s really not a crime. That’s hijinks!

          1. And if the two chicks were Julia Roberts and Hillary Duff they would call it horseplay!

            *rimshot*

            1. Or whoresplay.

            2. COUNT ME IN!

            3. Don’t forget Carly.

    3. That overcomplicated it. Just ban deadly overdoses. The penalty is death. Problem solved.

    4. “I don’t understand. If they worried about ravers dying of Ecstasy overdoses, why don’t they just ban Ecstasy?”
      As most posters here agree, all drugs should be legal.
      It is a great way to reinstitute the Darwin principle.

  3. “We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music,” said Ma.

    She had to find this out? Is this woman smart enough to feed herself?

    1. Politician, dude.

      1. California politician, dude.

          1. Sweet!

            1. Sweet!

          2. Dude. Bogus.

        1. And probably a future governor because obviously she just cares so fucking much!

    2. I present to you the Speaker pro Tempore of the California Assembly.

      I hate this state.

      1. O tempora! O mores!

    3. Democrat, dude.

      1. “facts are stupid things”

        1. “democrats are stupid things”

          –me

          1. i served, in part, so sarcasmic can write all teh [STUPIDZ] he desires

            1. There is an inverse relationship between one’s knowledge of economics and the likelihood of their being a liberal.

              http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

              1. course ur knowledge of lub-rahlz is the stuff of radio entertainment.

              2. yeah but that little test is bs. They just took a bunch of econ questions that have answers that default to right leaning instincts.

                I bet if you asked things about education can increase output, open immigration leads to effciency, infrastructure can have posative returns, all things that econmics generally states, youd end up with liberals as “smarter.”

                This test has less to dow ith ones knowlege of econmci principals and just how reflexive you are to your political predispositions.

                1. I bet if you asked things about education can increase output, open immigration leads to effciency (who thinks it doesn’t? even the tuk R jerbs guys don’t dispute efficiency), infrastructure can have posative returns, all things that econmics generally states, youd end up with liberals as “smarter.”

                  So you’re saying that if you ask questions with huge loopholes in them, or questions that everyone understands, then liberals are “smarter”?

              3. Since economics = religion, who would be surprised that more intelligent liberals avoid become fundamentalist believers?

                Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.

                ? Robert H. Nelson
                ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

                1. So instead of religious fundamentalists they become Keynesian economists instead. How is this an improvement?

                  1. So instead of religious fundamentalists they become Keynesian economists instead. How is this an improvement?

                    It’s not. Religious fundamentalists only want 10%. Ask a keynesian how much you should tithe to their god and they reply with “how much you got?”.

            2. Thanks for getting brain damage for our freedoms or something.

              1. wellz i waz using my mastrbatin wit my rifel, and it went of

                1. Strong liberal AI:

                  function argument_by_definition(def) {
                  return def;
                  };

                  function appeal_to_authority() {
                  return argument_by_definition(“bs”);
                  };

                  function non_sequitor() {
                  return “Somalia!!! ROADSZ!”;
                  }

                  function main() {
                  appeal_to_authority() || non_sequitor();
                  }

            3. shut up, faggot. probably some chairborne ranger pushing paper.

    4. She is fed by the people stupid enough to vote for her.

    5. What I’m trying to figure out is how she thought that would actually, you know, work. I mean, screw the Constitutional question, how do you ban “rave music”? Do you get hipsters to testify in court that even though the artist said that his influences are more modern Killers and Rihanna, they detect a notable whiff of Daft Punk in there?

      I like to imagine that whoever was responsible for the legal review of Ma’s proposed law sent back the following note:

      “Dear Assemblywoman Ma: this bill is stupid. You are stupid.”

      1. You would have to have a committee of hipsters for public safety determine those issues.

        1. A purpose for the Occupy movement has been found

      2. In case you haven’t been able to put 2 and 2 together, Fiona Ma is a Communist.

    6. She is a stupid one, isn’t she?

      1. In the corporate world she would have “senior management” written all over her.

    7. I keep having these expectations. Like a politician, whose whole job is passing laws, would know very basic things like you can’t ban an entire genre of music.

      Christ.

    8. I don’t think she’s old enough to remember when Mrs. Al Gore and a bunch of other Stepford Wives tried to ban Twisted Sister and John Denver songs.

  4. Time to start tatooing “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” on the foreheads of elected representatives so that they can see it in the mirror every morning.

    1. pfft, they’d just ban mirrors then.

      1. Politicians stop reflecting in mirrors once they are sworn into office. I doubt most lifers even remember what a mirror is for.

        1. Except John Edwards

    2. Wouldn’t we have to invert it?

      1. Just like ECNALUBMA

          1. No, I think this is more accurate

            Oldie but a pant wetting goodie.

            1. That is one of the all time classics. I had this on a cassette tape back in the ’90s.

      2. Politicians are through the looking glass.

  5. Much of the political backlash against raves began in 2002, when then-Senator Joe Biden proposed the Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy, or RAVE Act…

    Who gets paid to come up with all these acronyms? Sounds like a fun time coming up with USA PATRIOT, DREAM or CLASS Acts.

    As for me I don’t listen to much electronic music but it’s usually heavier stuff like industrial or aggrotech.

    1. I support the RETARD Act: Representatives who Enact Terrible Acts are Remanded for Deprogramming.

      1. + infinity squared.

      2. Comment of the Day!

  6. “Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn’t really know what was going on.”

    You don’t say.

    1. The fact that she can say this so easily and without shame is…disturbing. Remember when being a fucking moron was embarrassing?

      1. Yes!

        Wait, no, the other thing. What was it? …Oh yeah, right.

        No!

      2. She’s pretty MILF-tastic, but yeah, moron.

        You have to wonder just how imbecilic her district is, that they keep sending her back. It’s like an entire district populated by Navin R. Johnsons.

        1. By definition the median IQ is 100.

          That means 50% of the population has an IQ that is under 100.

          There’s a lot of stupid people out there.

        2. And many of them vote.

          1. and reproduce

            1. Been around the world and found
              That only stupid people are breeding
              The cretins cloning and feeding
              And I don’t even own a TV

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgmC_USeoM

        3. Next up, banning cat juggling.

        4. She ain’t that hot.

          Michelle Malkin’s a bitch, too, but at least she’s WAY better-looking.

      3. Fiona Ma is well known for being much more than a mere moron; she is a Communist. She wants rave laws because she wants “laws,” period. She wants to grab us by the sensitive parts and pull with all her Marxist might, m’kay!

  7. So, ban the ecstasy, result: kids can buy it.

    Ban the rave, and kids can get in.

    A pattern definitely exists there, but I wouldn’t expect any politician to be capable of recognizing it.

    1. Politicians only know intentions.
      Results are a foreign concept.

  8. “You can’t wear gloves with lights, you can’t, um, walk around with stuffed animals- I mean all the things that the ‘rave culture’…the promoters have tried to break down and make more like a concert where people go to a venue to enjoy themselves and not have all of the things that are associated, traditionally, in the past, with raves- no pacifiers, for example. Nobody was allowed to have pacifiers in their mouths.”

    It’s a good thing for her that politicians are still allowed to prove that they are morons through legislation.

    1. Really, there should be a law against making laws against things that in themselves aren’t harmful.

      1. Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime.

        –Neal Boortz

      2. ProL

        As long as said law carries the death penalty* for any legislator who proposes or seconds such a law.

        *Mandatory being lowered into a pot of boiling oil or burning at the stake; not subject to appeal or commutation.

        1. ZERO TOLERANCE!!!!

          With associated strip searches by the Sgt at Arms.

          1. Think of the physical condition of most legislators.

            Then consider the fact that most legislatures have some television feed.

            Do you really want to see that diseased flesh laid bare on our screens?

            (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!)

        2. being lowered into a pot of boiling oil and/or burning at the stake

          There. Much better. Why limit the pain?

    2. They tried this in the past with the Zoot Suit. How did that work out?

      1. I’d say with good results. Seen any Zoot suit riots lately?

        1. Only when i thorw back a bottle of beer.

  9. “Ma was able to squelch aspects of rave culture like LED gloves and pacifiers by keeping the pressure on event organizers with Assembly Bill 74”

    Pacifiers are now illegal? Arrest babies before they become hardened druggy ravers! It’s for their own good!

    1. Don’t arrest the pacifier-addicted babies, just take their candy. Sweet, sweet, lucre. errr, sucre.

      1. Just use this:

        http://www.informationweek.com…../231900555

        We. Are. Sooooo. Fucked.

        1. Holy Minority Report Batman…

        2. Holy Minority Report Batman…

  10. That pink pantied girl is quite the cutie.

    1. Does she have a website?

  11. And Jerry Brown signed that worthless authoritarian shit? I had low expectations and he has yet to disappoint.

    Also, I have work gloves with an LED flashlight on the index knuckle of each hand. I imagine the legislation is vague enough that they are now illegal in CA.

    1. That will be one of those charges they tack on to force a plea bargain (“if they convict on the LED gloves charge, you’ll have to register as a sex-offender, so best to take the 3-5 on possession…you’ll be out in 18 months”)

  12. This is ground-breaking legislation. All we have to do now is ban tie-dye shirts and hemp pullovers, and pot usage will drop like a rock. The war on drugs is all but won!

    1. It’s California. They don’t care about pot. You are free to do what you want in CA, as long as it has something to do with smoking pot or being gay (except getting married).

      1. But I care about pot.

      2. Or making money, can’t be an evil money grubbing capitalist can we. Oh, and defending yourself with a gun because guns are bad m’kay.

  13. I love the ad for The Rave Store I’m seeing in the right sidebar…did you know you can buy LED gloves and pacifiers over teh intertubez?!?!?!

    1. Crap, all is see are ads for Tivo, Official MLB merchandise, Declaration of Independents, and Capella University (WTF is that???).

      1. I guess at 39 and gainfully employed, I’m right in their sweet spot demographic.

      2. I also see an ad with some scowly, scary-lookin chick in a reason hoodie.

        1. I see that ad too. She should try smiling. Girls are prettier when they smile.

          1. Don’t knock the reason hoodie meth-head girl.

            1. She was clean for a while. Sad to see her relapse.

            2. Yeah, she does look a bit like she’s coming down from meth. You go girl?

              1. A Lobster Girl pic would be nice about now.

        2. Ha! I got the Rave Store, the drug-addled Reason hoodie girl, the History Channel, and The [Window] Blinds Store.

          I guess the last one makes sense if you don’t want politicians finding out you’re having raves in your house.

      3. Firefox plus AdBlock makes for a much more pleasant site.

        1. You’ll never know if hoodie girl kicks her meth habit.

    2. I thought the adware checks your cookies and markets to your preferences… so you obviously are a rave predator.

      Coincidentally, I get the conservative t-shirts ad with (small world) a girl I hooked up with in college as one of the models. And she’s an uber-Dem so those shirts must burn a little.

    3. Ban teh intertubez!

  14. My co-worker told me they are doing a re-make of Footloose. I thought it was a joke because even in the early 80’s, towns that banned dancing were a rarity.

    Turns out that Footloose was more relevant than even Tremors 2.

  15. Another reason Vegas is teh Fabulous!

  16. MDMA is a fantastic drug. Euphoria without drowsiness, mild hallucinations without vomiting. But the hangovers are brutal.

    1. That’s one of the few drugs I’ve never tried.
      Pot, acid, shrooms, mescaline, speed, Valium, cocaine, heroin, morphine, nitrous, but no x.
      And now I’m too responsible to do something that will keep me up all night.

      Drag.

      1. Dude, you can try x without going full-on idiot raver. Just take one tab, then take a nap for an hour. You will wake up feeling wonderful, and everything will feel wonderful for 5 or 6 hours, and food will taste amazing, especially cran-grape juice and smoothies. Just make sure you drink enough water or gatorade, and you will be able to drift gently off to sleep after a few hours and wake up feeling rested, but otherwise normal.

        1. But don’t drink too much water.

    2. What hangovers?

      1. I’ve always had speed hangovers from it (understandable given it chemical comp.) Mostly just extreme lethargy the next morning.

        1. Interesting. I’ve always woken up feeling great. But I never take more than one tab.

    3. I don’t know, I’d done it plenty of times and it had been pretty unremarkable for me. I’ll stick with the classics…booze, pot, shrooms, llello…

      YMMV and all of that. I was going to NASA in the early ’90s and that was the first time I saw a blown up rave scene, and E was definitely a popular choice. But so were ‘shrooms, and I preferred those.

    4. MDMA is a fantastic drug. Euphoria without drowsiness, mild hallucinations without vomiting. But the hangovers are brutal.

      Were you drinking with it? That makes it waaaay worse. Also, you left out the instant female bisexuality side-effect.

    5. I believe P.J. O’Rourke described it as St. Joseph’s Baby Acid.

  17. a 15-year-old girl named Sasha Rodriguez died…of an apparent ecstasy overdose

    I hope she did us the favor of collecting her Darwin award before she was able to reproduce.

    I’m completely confident that banning LED gloves and pacifiers will totally stop stupid people from ever Darwinizing themselves on X again.

    1. We all know Prohibition was a terrific success. I am certain that noone will ever die at a public gathering again now that this bill has passed.

  18. Hey, Ma, you ain’t my mom. Bitch, get back in the laundry.

    1. Iron My Shirts!

  19. In my younger, druggier days, I went to numerous raves throughout SoCal. My favorite “trip toy” was a simple racquetball. It bounced, was squeezable (good for when the ecstasy came on strong), and above all was cheap. Looks like Fiona Ma should amend the bill to include racquetballs, too.

    1. A disposable filter mask coated with Vick’s VapoRub on the inside works wonders. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

    2. My younger days as well. Back then, EDC was held in San Joaquin Valley anyways, so screw L.A., apparently their hated imbred central valley brethern were more culturally advanced than the cosmopolitan Angelenos.

      Candy flipping there (MDMA+LSD) was quite the experience. But I generally avoided the house and trance rooms that they always show when discussing rave culture. I was a junglehead/DnB fan rocking colorful camos instead of gay ass candy kid accessories.

      1. Candy flipping . . . (MDMA+LSD)

        I can’t even imagine that. What’s it like, versus either of those on their own?

        1. Insanity. It really amps up the effects exponentially. High on X, and smoking a joint is quite a euphoric high as well. Alas, I haven’t taken (fun) drugs in over eight years. Maturity, career, marriage, responsibility, blah, blah, blah….

          1. Yeah, ditto here. Although my last psychadelic experience was slightly more recent, 2007 I had some mushroom tea for the release of the Dark Knight. Pretty trippy. My other fond recollection of candy flipping was a Disneyland Grad night in HS, that is an interesting place to be full blown hallucinating.

        2. It’s actually I think a better overall experience insofar as the MDMA generally puts one in a positive frame of mind, thereby helping to mitigate the potential of any dark directions for the LSD explore. Plus, combining the physical body high from MDMA along with the profound mental high from LSD makes for a more rounded and wholly otherworldly feel.

          1. Fuck, I want to try that before i die.

            1. You should, it’s like heaven.

  20. Way too much jailbait tail in that video. Look at the boobs on that girl with the flowers in her hair. Yowza!

    1. Way too much jailbait tail in that video.

      Does not compute.

  21. Can you ban a style of music? California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma [D-CA] learned the hard way that doing so might not be so easy when she tried to ban electronic rave music.

    So that should just about stick a fork in the tired notion that the Dems are all about the 1st Amendment.

  22. And still every raver who does vote will vote Democratic.

    They get what they deserve.

    1. And you think Republicans are more socially liberal and would NOT ban raves? Reality Check. Raves are targeted in Republican controlled states too.

      More likely that many ravers don’t vote in the first place. Actually there’s a substantial Libertarian trend amongst older ravers. So way oversimplifed.

      Last local election I voted for the local Peace & Freedom party candidates (A socialist party) party personally. Greens are also party friendly.

      1. False dichotomy. “Don’t vote Democrat” doesn’t mean the same as “Vote Republican.” (or vice versa).

  23. The really scary part?

    This moron is speaker pro tem. Her colleagues apparently think very highly of her.

    1. Well yeah, she has no regard for the 1st Amendment and she likes to ban shit. That’s enough to make you a superstar in California’s political establishment.

    2. First, I’d like to again thank Reason for focusing on the scantily clad, female form when showing people on the street. It makes the day go by much more pleasantly.

      Second, I watched the video without sound, and at one moment, I’m pretty sure Fiona Ma made air quotes.

      That’s all I need to know.

  24. She just wanted to make sure everyone has fun in the nice, prescribed way and not some way of their own choosing. It’s ok if people get together for a concert, but not a rave with silly flashlight hands and pacifiers. That’s dangerous and not fun.

    The way this woman talks I’m surprised she was able to spell her name correctly on the application to be an Assemblyperson.

    1. The way this woman talks I’m surprised she was able to spell her name correctly on the application to be an Assemblyperson.

      Helps only having a two letter surname.

  25. Frankie: Miss Mullins, you’re the man.
    Miss Mullins: Thank you, Frankie.

  26. I’m late to the Reason party, but I’m glad you all have a sense of humor because her stupidity (and those that must have elected her) makes me want to cry for our nation. First its the gloves with the lights, then it’s the gloves, then it’s the lights. Why is my office so dark she asked?

    1. I can honestly say that before today I’ve never had the urge to wear lighted gloves. Now I find a perverse pleasure in the idea.

  27. Yo’ reason – time to wipe some egg offa yo’ face. You didn’t bother to read AB 74 (which was pretty much completely rewritten from “intro” to “chaptered”). Nor is there ANYTHING that mentions banning LED gloves or pacifiers. That apparently was the action of a promoter – not an effect of state law (i.e. “CA bans”).

    I suspect I know why this was put up sans byline.

    1. Please watch video *before* commenting.

      1. How about instead of just watching a video you check out what AB 74 actually says. Or is reading too hard? That goes for you too Paul & Zach.

        And thanks for making me actually listen to that stupid bitch Ma. Holy fucking stupid! She is definitely gubernatorial material – if she doesn’t take Pelosi’s seat when the Nance-ster retires (Ma even has those Pelosi eyes).

  28. Is Fiona Ma Vietnamese for stupid bitch or something. Banning pacifiers and gloves…really? I bet this bitch doesn’t use tampons, too complicated.

  29. This woman is obviously out of touch. If she wants to stop ecstasy use, she should be trying to ban Vick’s Inhalers.

    Duh.

  30. That stupid cow. The drugs were already illegal, and the kid still got them, so the pinhead’s solution is to try to ban music?

    I think you have to go all the way back to Cotton Mather to find that magnitude of idiocy.

    -jcr

  31. Fast forward to 4:54 to get a full shot of the cutie.

  32. Apparently this stupid bitch hasn’t been to a “concert” either. When i saw Roger Waters in Kansas City in 1999, they turned off the fake smoke machines because of all the real weed and tobaco smoke.

  33. Somewhere in Tennessee, Tipper Gore has a raging hard-on.

    1. I think the tipper gore comparisons are a bit off. And god forbid, I can’t believe I am “defending” tipper, but iirc she didn’t call for BANNING music… She called for labeling. I draw a bright line there. It’s a big difference to say that shitnshould be labeled as to content vs. Shit should be banned

      Iirc, glen danzig’s song “mother” was a reference to her and the pmrc. Movies already had ratings, and god knows it didn’t stop us from seeing R rated movies… It encouraged us… More boobs and blood.

      I think tipper was a prudish hinny but she wasn’t proposing unconstitutional bans on anything iirc.

      The primary problem IMO with the music ratings was how much more subjective it was for the eaters. Denver’s rocky mtn high ws Actua
      Ly accused of being a song about drugs, which is fucking hilariousy stupid, regardless, we weren’t doing shit like banning cannibal holocaust like Italy, etc. Did iirc, and I will always draw a bright line between a label And a ban. If walmart et al Choose not to cArry movies with certain ratings, I can choose to not shop there and get it somewhere else. A ban otoh uses the hand of govt via a gun to limit choice. Fwiw, I used to go to raves and enjoyed them.

      1. she didn’t call for BANNING music… She called for labeling.

        Her plan was that labeling would result in effective banning, since the major retailers wouldn’t dare risk the ire of the suburban housewives.

        If the Democrats weren’t such flaming hypocrites, that fracas would have ended Al’s career.

        -jcr

        1. I’ve heard this argument before but I don’t buy it. Labeling just means IF theRe is a market for r ated stuff like with movies th stores that don’t sell it lose customers. Free market is GOOD. I can choose to boycott stores that don’t carry stuff. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN A BAN. And god knows the movie rating system didn’t result in a lack of boobs and gore. r

  34. As juris imprudent pointed out above, there is nothing in Assembly Bill 74 about banning pacifiers or LED gloves.

    I’m a big fan of Reason and appreciate its tireless work in pointing out the fanaticism and idiocy of the drug war apologists, but I believe that the title of this article is extremely misleading and ought to be corrected.

    1. The bill is about the implication of more regulation and selective enforcement against event proprietors, which is what matters, you fucking pedant bitch.

      1. The title of the article is Reason.tv: Ravers vs. The Man – CA Bans LED Gloves and Pacifiers. However, California has not banned LED gloves and pacifiers, which makes the title misleading at best, and outright inaccurate at worst.

        God forbid that I ask Reason to be accurate in its reporting.

  35. Raider fans occasionally kill fans of other teams. Clearly we should ban everyone in the bay area.

    1. So true!!! Wtf this is so stupid

  36. Why does this woman think the banning of LED gloves and baby pacifiers, an item you can find at any drug store or supermarket, will have any bearing at all on drug use? This business of teenage girl going around with pacifiers in their mouths is creepy but something I’d expect them to grow out of. (For a second time.)

    In my long ago youth, blatant drug paraphernalia was fashionable. Vast numbers of teens and twenty-somethings went around with tiny spoons or roach clips dangling from their necks. It didn’t have much bearing on whether that person was a big coke snorter or pot smoker. It was just fashionable defiance for its own sake. Eventually some busybodies sought to ban these items wherever they could.

    Did it have even the slightest demonstrable effect on drug use? Nope. It just signaled that it was time to move on to the next idiot fashion.

  37. This article on F. Ma’s CA 74 passage is total BULLSHIT. LIARS! Get your facts straight.

  38. Umm…maybe they should target drug abuse and not pacifiers??? Just a thought….

  39. Maybe they should go after drug abuse instead of pacifiers?? Just a thought…

  40. “We found out later that constitutionally you can’t ban a certain type of music.”
    It’s sad that they tried that in the first place, but even sadder that they didn’t realize we also have the right to assembly.

  41. The Assemblywoman first became concerned with raves when a 15-year-old girl named Sasha Rodriguez died at the popular Los Angeles rave, The Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC).

    Feature, not bug.

  42. Educate your children to the best of your ability then let them go and let them grow. Certain people will remain terminally stupid no matter how many laws you impose on smart people, don’t assist the feeble-minded to procreate… Freedom means letting Darwin do his thing. We’ll all stronger in the end for it. Oh yeah, and that little thing called freedom of expression.

  43. How about they just ban 15 year olds?

    It would make about as much sense.

    This isn’t the tyranny of the majority as much as it is the tyranny of the busybody.

    1. Yess good idea

  44. I just read the bill. Nothing is mentioned in it about LED gloves and pacifiers. Where did that come from? And it apparently only applies to events over 10,000 people. Here is the bill as passed:

    http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-…..tered.html

  45. Seriously punishing everyone because of one girl that died??? How is it our fault people die in clubs too so are u gna band those too??

  46. I agree with several of the above posts in regards to the title. The title should be changed and is misleading. The bill mentions nothing of banning gloves and pacifiers. Reason needs to do a better job with their fact checking.

  47. Whats up! I just want to give an enormous thumbs up for the great information you have got right here on this post. I shall be coming back to your weblog for more soon.
    Guantes de latex
    http://www.guantesdelatex.net/

  48. Amazing blog, I had not thought of yet in the network occur.
    Botiquines
    http://www.comprarbotiquines.com/

  49. Since no one’s said it yet, I will – I’d give anything to be that driver’s license!

  50. Here is the bill as signed. Not that the law is a good idea, but it doesn’t ban pacifiers or anything like that.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/…..tered.html

    The video is super deceptive. You need to take it down or change it.

  51. For once, the US trails the UK in something!

    We went through all this in the 80s, culminating in a Criminal Justice Act in (I think) 1994 that sought to define a rave and prevent them from taking place spontaneously.

    Actually, what you have in the US, like with EDC, seems to be just an organised dance music festival. Raves take place without permission or concern for what the law demands of people who want to have a good time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.