dnalounge update

DNA update: RAVE Act passes. "Yay."

17 Responses:

  1. So look, if any of you jackasses were planning on trying to sneak The Drugs into my club, could you please show a little consideration and just fucking not?


    i'll pretend that it's out of consideration for you, but i'm remembering a conversation i was having a few weeks ago with dna security; i was telling them that basically, this would be the perfect club to do drugs in atmospherically, but the fact that i KNEW all the staff and i KNEW how they mocked the e-tards, etc. prevented me from EVER wanting to make a complete jackass out of myself there, only to be mocked the following week.

    "i know you'd guys; you'd TOTALLY point and laugh."
    "that's right! hell yeah we would."

    so there you have it. using the forces of mortification to keep ya outta the pokey.

  2. greyface says:

    Woe betide to the man who runs a nightclub that the mayor's daughter enjoys.

    If there ever has been a law whose text is interchangeable with "Life sentence to anybody who runs a nightclub, that gets on our nerves" it would be this one. This is rather obviously about closing events/clubs and not about drug use, or drug safety, or drug education, or drug abuse prevention.

    First they make you jump through hoops (some of which were on fire) to get the place. Then they reward you for your effort by claiming the right to put you in jail at their whim.

    I think you were right (whenever-ago) when you said the powers that be want the whole country to be boring. It just seems to be about ensuring that there is as little entertainment as possible.

    • nichiyume says:

      Blame england? They kicked the Puritans out and founded America!
      --not my own thought.

    • I think you're overestimating their connection with reality. It's not that they want the nation to be boring -- they'd love for the people to be captivated by hollywood blockbusters and beltway snipers and wars on iraq. The fact is that the government actually believes that we're all dangerous drug abusers (I don't have any idea who you are, but their guilt-by-association cluster is that big!). The war on drugs would be senseles without the assumption that drugs are universally seductive and ubiquitous.

    • icis_machine says:

      ....unless it's corporate sponsored.

  3. baconmonkey says:

    I say we start giving crackheads $30 to go smoke up on golf courses and govt buildings.

  4. Neal's plan is flawed -- Joe Biden's office isn't a place of *business*.

    • tfofurn says:

      Let's go to the text, shall we?

      `(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.'.

      The language does not restrict it to places of business at all. Private residences are vulnerable. However, the place must be open for the purpose of . . . using a controlled substance. DNA is not open for that purpose, but that's far more wiggle room than I'd like to give a D.A. I'm not convinced that the golf course or politico office thing would work unless the D.A. could say the course or office existed for the purpose of using controlled substances. As is far too often the case, it's up to the prosecutor to decide on whose ass the law will get medieval.

      And you don't think the politician's office is a place of business? How do you think they got elected?

      • greyface says:

        FYI, and not that it matters but: By law, most all elected officials are required to perform their elected duties in offices that are different from where they ran their campaign. It's that hypothetical separation of campaigning from the rest of their life.

  5. _revidescent says:

    watching the giants game right now and there was just a news bite about a popular sf club that is being told it is "going to be X-ed out of existence" because of ecstasy usage.

    supposedly they're going to look at what this means to other clubs at 10pm or after the game.

  6. icis_machine says:

    does this mean i can or can't bring in my allergy meds next time i come out? you guys totally gave me heck over a sealed and packaged bubble of benadryl.

  7. flipzagging says:


    Are you going to have to put up a big sign explaining this at the club entrance? Otherwise attempt to educate the clubgoing masses?

  8. kchrist says:

    In this case, the "RAVE Act" was attached to the "AMBER Alert" bill, which is legislation about child abduction that has nothing to do with drug policy.

    Absolutely ridiculous. Where's the line item veto when we need it?

  9. sixty4k says:

    No worries from my segment of crowd, we all drink when we go to clubs, and do the illicit drugs in illicit locations during ranpant law breaking rave type things.

    Of course, I'm gonna shit my pants at the next party that gets thrown at my warehouse...

  10. So you aren't liable if people show up to the club already dosed, right?

  11. macguyver says:

    Another law to enforce when we don't like you.