REGULATING RAVES

When one hears that word, it's normally associated with drugged-up teenagers
going berserk at some sort of venue with excessively loud music.

The news media has dragged out every bad aspect of raves, and I guess it's
because the media thrives on bad news.

In actuality, raves are places where teenagers can meet and listen to the
music they like. The drugs are another story.

As Richmond artist Bryan Bone said in a recent Province article, "A rave is
nothing more than an all-night gathering of the tribe. We're not as bad as
people make us out to be, or as interesting."

Having been to a rave before, I can say the exact same thing. The atmosphere
really is something else, it really is a gathering of the tribe, as Bryan so
aptly puts it.

Even so, municipalities are planning to either ban the "all-night dances,"
or set up rules for promoters to follow and allow raves to be held legally.

As also stated in The Province, "Surrey wants to prohibit them; Richmond has
restricted them to three per month and Vancouver allows late-night dance
parties but refuses to call them raves."

We teenagers see nothing wrong with these parties, as they are just a place
for us to meet with people we don't see often, and also a place for us to
enjoy ourselves for a night.

Going back to the issue of municipalities and their problem with raves, The
Province also reported, "Surrey is concerned about 3,000 people high on God
knows what spilling into the streets in the wee hours."

This is a huge misconception.

First of all, not everybody at a rave will take drugs, thus not all 3,000
people (if there are 3,000 in the first place) will be "high on God knows
what."

Also, we do not spill into the streets in the wee hours of the day. That is
why the promoters have raves last until approximately 8 a.m.

Take promoter Salim Lakhani, for example. He says, "Give us a chance to be
responsible. Dancing from 2 a.m. to 8 a.m. is no different than dancing from
6 p.m. to 10 p.m."

With this in mind, think about what would happen if raves were to be banned.

Youths love raves and they would find ways to hold them, by any means
necessary, including underground raves.

Underground raves, however, are not nearly as safe as those which are held
in proper facilities like the Plaza of Nations.

Security at underground raves is non-existent, so the ravers are in great
danger.

Like Chris Neumeyer, 17, said in The Province, "Banning raves just increases
the danger. They're going to happen anyway."

I feel that Chris speaks for all ravers out there when he says they're going
to happen anyway, because they do.

Regulating raves would be a much better idea than banning them and forcing
kids to go out to open fields on Indian reserves for raves.

Coun. Ken Johnston attended an event anonymously and had a few things to say
about it: "Security did a good job. They patted me down pretty good."

Ecstasy is synonymous with raves only because drug dealers have ways of
smuggling it into raves and selling it inside. People buy it and take it
because of the high it gives them. The whole experience of a rave is
supposedly heightened by taking this drug, but I don't believe that has
anything to do with it.

For the most part, a rave is just a place for people to go and meet each
other, dance, listen to music and just have a great time.

I am one of these people, and I feel drugs don't add to the atmosphere.

Another startling fact associated with raves is the amount of money
involved. Promoters came make or lose $20,000 to $50,000 in a single night.
Expenses include disc jockeys, jugglers, dancers, lighting, security, sound
system, insurance, medical personnel and permits. Total costs can reach
$100,000 for a big show.

It takes a lot of work to organize a rave. I'm not about to let something
like this be maligned by the news media and ultimately banned only because
of propaganda.