Notes from "Regulating the Rave Scene" (2003)

Regulating the Rave Scene: Exploring the Policy Alternatives of Government

(Leisure Sciences, 25:307-325, 2003)

Troy D. Glover, 

Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies

University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: "Given the recent interest in raves by municipal officials across North America, the intent behind this manuscript is to explore the various policy alternatives that government might consider in response to rave culture and the “threat” of Ecstasy on youth. In particular, the paper focuses on three policy options: tolerance, prohibition, and harm reduction. A discussion of the alternatives and suggestions about the suitability of each one is outlined. Before doing so, however, a detailed discussion about rave culture, its dimensions, and its association with deviance is provided. Given the relative absence of analyses in the leisure literature of rave culture and the regulation of leisure behavior, it is hoped that the following manuscript will serve as a point of departure for further study on “deviant” leisure and the appropriateness of government intervention."

In response to rave culture and the threat of Ecstasy use by youth, this article puts forward the case for ‘Harm Reduction’

• it is one of three options
• the others being ‘Tolerance’ and ‘Prohibition’

The article summarizes positive and negative aspects of rave culture --

Positive:

• sense of community, “even tribalism”
• absence of violence, aggressiveness
• social barriers are reduced
• the “vibe”
• ravers are welcoming (“ostensibly do not judge others on their clothing, physical appearance, sexual orientation, or dancing ability”)
• “ravers are said to demonstrate openness toward traditionally marginalized groups, such as homosexuals, ethnic and racial minorities, and women”
• raves are an androgynous culture
• lack of sexual tension
• in summary: “[rave] fosters community, reduces barriers, and cultivates androgyny – suggests there are many appealing features of rave culture [...] excitement, not deviance, is sought by the ravers.”

Negatives:

• Recreational drug use: physical side effects
• unknown complications of drug use
• “irrational drug use” based on misinformation (Weir, 2000)

Liberty and Rave Culture

Liberty: ie., “the presence or absence of constraints imposed directly or indirectly by governments on individuals”

• “enables people to act in ways others cannot control”
• as a direct consequence of “liberty,” “people are left free to behave in ways that others might find immoral or offensive”

“Often, those upset by another’s behavior react by trying to limit liberty.  The problem for government, therefore, is to decide under what circumstances it is justified to impose limits on individual choice or action.”

To help make this determination, we have the “harm principle” of John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty:

• “the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their members is self-protection” (John Stuart Mill)
• the harm principle states that you cannot interfere in a person’s like to protect that person from himself; you can only interfere in a person’s liberty when that person harms others
• if you do not harm others, your life is your own business
• cannot interfere with people’s behavior because you disagree with it, find it immoral, or offensive

Recreational drug use harms “users’ loved ones, employers, and general public” ?? “The nature of the harm is tenuous at best.”

“Arguably, raves pose a perceived threat to mainstream society from two sources”:

• “Raves are hedonistic.”

·       “undermine disciplinary control by rejecting delayed gratification”

·       delayed gratification (work now, reward later) is central to capitalism according to this author

• Raves are a “deviant drug culture”

• Ravers are the “all-American” (or all-Canadian) kid next door
• Critcher (2000): “improvised gatherings of large numbers of young people, intent on enjoying themselves and making a great deal of noise, are always perceived as a threat to public order (p.151)”

Bowie and Simon (1998) contended that “the burden of proof rests with those who wish to limit liberty” to show that they are not being paternalistic or moralistic.

The test?  Those who would limit liberty to minimize offense must demonstrate:

1. behavior cannot be avoided easily
2. impractical to provide a controlled, out-of-sight area (“out of sight, out of mind”)
3. no impingement of freedom of speech
4. community support to proceed

Raves (according to the author) do not meet this test

The author says: “Although raves are viewed moralistically as deviant, I aruge that the activity itself is objectionable only because it serves as an arena for resistance.”

How to “clamp down” on raves?

• Limiting raves does not pass the ‘liberty test’ above
• So how to direct the mechanisms of the state against raves?
• “In general an objection from the community as a whole lies with the adolescent drug use linked to rave culture.”
• drug use: crimes without victims? restricting liberty is perhaps still inappropriate.

So what are the options of government?

Potential Policy Alternatives

1) Tolerance:

• absense of a formal government response to rave culture

2) Prohibition:

• “Prohibition, in contrast to the tolerance approach, forbids by law the sale or use of Ecstasy” ... 
• ... since it is unlikely that one could make it illegal to merely attend a rave
• Ecstasy therefore becomes a matter for courts, police, and prison system
• Concerns with this approach:
• It is a punitive option: high costs, low effectiveness
• Brings the state right into communities
• Burdens young people with criminal records
• Punishments out of line with actual dangers of E
• Potential to force raves even further underground
• “In short [...] it is impossible to prohibit young people from using substances they want to use.”

3) Harm reduction:

• pragmatic approach
• recognizes drug use at raves
• abstinence or non-use is part of the strategy...
• ... but so is providing users with information and resources to use drugs safely if they choose to

Rosenbaum (1999) argued that harm reduction must be rooted in:

• respecting users’ intelligence and choices
• recognizing that abstinence is not a viable choice for some people
• understanding difference between use and abuse of drugs

Raves and harm reduction:

• First tier: ensure a safe venue – fire, water, ventilation, ambulance, etc etc
• “ravers themselves believe that raves organized in legal spaces are safer (Weber, 1999) so it is conceivable that the rave community would accept such standards.”
• Second tier: awareness campaign “to educate ravers about the health effects of rave participation”
• eg: advised to take breaks from dancing, drink some water but not too much, and know risks associated with drugs
• “these messages are likely to be more effective if delivered by an organization at arm’s length or completely disconnected from government”

Weber (1999): “he concluded that, based upon his observations, harm reduction is a realistic policy option that would be welcomed within the rave community.”

Conclusion

The author favours harm reduction.

The typical response has been to try to put a stop to raves.  “I believe the complexity of the issue necessitates a more reasoned approach. Reactionary responses are largely moralistic and are too quick to limit liberty under the premise that the behavior in question is objectionable.”

“Moral objections aside ... the real issue of concern is not that youth are engaging in subversive behavior, but rather that youth are at risk because of the potential contaminants ... in Ecstasy.” 

Prohibition will not be seen as a legitimate policy therefore it is not a realistic policy.

• Martin, 1999, p.83: “Control of Ecstasy is tied into a moral culture that says it is all right to take drugs for medical reasons but not for fun”

Tolerance: not a realistic option ... can’t do nothing

Therefore, the author endorses harm reduction

“As long as they do not harm others, youth must be free to engage in the leisure activities they enjoy, even if such activities are subversive, for they, too, have their benefits.  Adult culture would be wise not to impose its will, but rather to teach youth to be skeptical, and more importantly, to be safe.” 

References:

Martin, D.  Power play and party politics: The significance of raving.  Journal of Popular Culture, 32(4), 77-99.

Weber, T.R (1999).  Raving in Toronto: PLUR in transition.  Journal of Youth Studies, 2(3), 317, 336

Tweet