At a party, definetly MDA or even E. I'm a big psychedelic head, so the visual effects and slight ego dissolution that you get on MDA is a big plus. I find it really tough to dance on MDMA at a party, i'll usually end up plastered on a couch people watching.

That said, MDMA is the way to go if you're taking it at someone's house with a few friends, its a great drug for social bonding.

Man, those Jamaicans are elevating the ole bump'n'grind into an art form!

it won't work for me! fuuuuuuuck

If theres one thing that will never change in the rave scene, its that there will always be people bitching about how parties used to be so much better back in the day. Even back in '93 there were already people saying that the scene was dead, and that parties werent the same as they were in '87. Sure, some years have more or bigger parties than other years, but i don't think size alone is the best criteria to judge how good a party is. Actually, some of my best memories are from parties that were no bigger than 200 people.

The truth is that after partying for several years, i definetly dont get the same euphoria from being at a rave as i did back in the day. Nowadays a party is just another party, its not something that i'll even remember much a month later 'cuz all the nights just have a way of blurring into one another. But i don't blame the "scene" for that cuz i see kids at these parties with the same amount of enthusiasm that i had for parties when i first started raving, so i know that the source of the greatest change lies within and not in the scene.

What a strange, awesome night. Got there just in time to hear Galaksy lay down a massive dnb set, and then the night just became progressively weirder! Whether it was getting whipped excessively in the chill room, hanging out with about 20 candy ravers is an approxitely 8 by 6 feet room appropriately named the "Kindergarden", ravers loosing their pants, getting poked in the eyeball, tripping out, getting shutdown, it was all pure, zany fun.

Ps. Dee rocks my socks!

I think this pretty much says it all. This guy spends so much time jerking off that when he ejacualtes, theres no freakin' semen left, its his brain goo that's oozing out and splashing onto his keyboard. Dude, seriously I hope you fulfill your "dream" and make a shit load of money 'cuz you desperately need the best psychologist that money can buy. PEACE!

I'm stoked for this!

It's been too long since theres been an all-night dnb throwdown.

^^ The rave scene is a scene. And just like any scene, it will attract people who are looking for a sense of social belongingness and for sense of identity.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Something that is admirable about the rave scene is that, at its best, its very open and inclusive to just about everyone, no matter who you are or where your coming from. Theres no better way to make a new crew of friends at a rave than to tell people its your first party. Try that at a punk or indie rock show and you'll probably just get alot of weird looks.

The reason i asked this question was imagining myself as a promoter and thinking who i would wanna book and what kind of party i'd wanna have. Since i'm most familiar with dnb, of course i'd love it if Pendulum or High Contrast would be booked at a party, but this would never happen unless alot of people would be willing to spend more money on their tickets. I agree that Montreal has an enormous pool of talented local DJ's and that it seems most people are more inclined to see the locals spin for a cheaper ticket price, which makes it less likely that big name DJ's/producers will be booked....which i'm not neccesarily complaining about. If you look at the big parties in the Rave scene recently like Terra 3 and Rewire, the formula seems to be quality locals with very reasonable ticket prices. I think that speaks volumes as to the preference of most partiers.

...And then they kill the glow-cats to make the glow-fur!

Its Saturday night and there are two parties in town to choose from. At one party, they've booked a big international DJ that you want to see, but tickets are $30. The other party has a good lineup of local DJ's and tickets are only $15. All else being equal, would you rather spend more money to see a famous DJ or save your money and stick to the local DJ's?

Overprivileged middle and upper class youth?

I don't know what scene your talking about, but in Montreal most of the ravers i've met come from relatively lower class backgrounds, with a few exceptions.

And I think its ironic that you think its a waste of time to write about raves, yet your a music producer. Maybe you shouldn't be "wasting your time" making music and instead be over in Africa handing out mosquito nets, or camping out in front of corporate headquarters protesting their monopolies? :P

I'm reading this thread and my brain cells are dying.

Concerned citizens alert: do not leave your bicycle alone in public places! It could be molested!

Is this a school assignment? :P

U should write out a list of questions, go to a party and then interview people. You'll definetly get some entertaining replies.

Exactly!

They say that quitting smoking is the easiest thing to do in the world, heck I've already quit smoking a dozen times already!

Definetly a night to file away in the rave history books. Everything was top-notch and well organized, some great DJ sets and deco, generally good vibes from the vast majority of people who were bringing in the new year in the biggest way possible. I can't remember the last time I spent a full 12 hours at a party without feeling the least bit bored, and seeing the main room still going at full swing at 11 in the morning. Rave on in 2008!

Everyone *is* getting younger, assuming of course that you're travelling backwards in time. Otherwise, people usually get OLDER.

Just listening to that song makes me feel high as fuck. Good times, good times :D

Those numbers look impressive, but i'm sure that everyone on this site will do their part to make the 2008 numbers even higher! Go ravers!

I wasn't at this party, but i agree that paying 14$ to hear a bunch of local DJs spin in a venue about the size of my living room is pretty ridiculous

The deco was amazing, and I really liked the chill room - it had a trippy loved up '60 vibe. I'm not a big techtrance head so alot of the music in the main room didn't do much for me, but when the psytrance was put on i was having a blast.

Ghetto oldschool venue, great DJ sets, good sound, and chill people.

The since is dieying! Long live the since!

Thai girls do this thing where they pull out a hair and then leave it in the bed of their man. That way they've marked their territory, and then if another girl happens to be in the bed and finds the hair, she'll know the guy's a cheater.

And I know this because, its happened to me :P

Bottom line is, there's no absolutely objective way of saying "drug X is worse than drug Y".

Firstly, we don't necessarily know all the possible side effects of any drug. For example, the question as to whether MDMA is neurotoxic or not at recreational doses is still up in the air.

Secondly, since different drugs have different types of side effects, its hard to make absolute judgements as to which is worse. Is the depression you experience the day after taking E a more or less severe side effect than the chance of getting lung cancer in forty years from smoking weed?

Finally, and most importantly, judging how harmful a drug is involves making all sorts of assumptions about how much of it is being used, what the purity is, how responsible the user is, and so forth. Someone who does MDMA once a month from a reliable source, and takes sensible precautions while on the drug, is obviously at much less risk than someone who pops multiple E pills every weekend that he gets from sketchy dealers.

So, basically what i'm saying is that really the only thing we can conlude is that "the way most people use drug X tends to produce more harm than the way most people use drug Y". Sure, cocaine is usually considered much worse than weed, but if you compare someone who smokes three joints a day, causing him to be frequently late for work, lethargic, slow, and anxious, that's way worse than someone who does coke a few times a year on special occasions.

Bwahahahaha

That interview is, quite possible, the funniest thing I have ever read in my life. EVER.

Context: my friend was totally messed up on DXM, finally around 5 AM he started to come down

Friend: Where did all my cigarretes go? (holds up empty pack)
Me: Dude, you smoked them all already!
Friend: But we just got to the party 10 minutes ago!
Me: Ummm, its 5 AM. We've been here four hours.
Friend: *puzzled expression*

No chart is going to convince me that pot is more dangerous than LSD or ecstasy, c'mon! I've known people that smoke pot 2-3 times a day, and aside from being a little spaced out and forgetful, they seem fine.

Imagine taking 2-3 pills of ecstasy or hits of acid a day, you'd be fuuuuuuuucked pretty quickly.

I guess its pretty hard to judge which drug is worse than another because it varies from person to person, some people can do a few lines of coke every few months on special occasions and be completely okay, while others end up really addicted, maxing out their parents' credit cards, destroying their lives and worst of all, listening to really bad music.

HAHAHA

everyone knows the bathtub is THE place to be

You forgot waking up in the bathtub! :D

1. You devote a large amount of time to drugs, whether its doing drugs, trying to score drugs, talking about drugs, or thinking about drugs.

2. You end up using more than you intended to. For example, you go to a party planning to take two pills and end up taking four.

3. You have developed a tolerance. You used to do key bumps of coke, now you're doing lines just to get the same effect.

4. You stop hanging out with people that don't do drugs.

5. You start lying to your friends about how much drugs you're doing, because you feel ashamed of it.

6. Your use of drugs is interfering with the rest of your life - for example you miss school or work because your recovering from a comedown.

7. You sometimes use drugs just to feel "normal"

If you answered yes to more than a few of the above criteria, you might be abusing drugs. Heres some of the things you can do to recover:

(1) abstinence - stop using all drugs
(2) selective abstinence - stop using certain drugs
(3) reduction - cut back on your use
(4) take a break from drugs, for example one month of abstinence

I guess it depends on what kind of heroin use we're referring to - do we assume that the heroin is clean or cut with all kinds of dangerous contaminants? Shooting, snorting or smoking? If shooinng, using clean needles or dirty ones?

I think its fair to assume that the information from NIDA is going to assume the most dangerous conditions possible, many of which exist only because of the laws prohibiting its use.

It all leads back to the wonderfully circular argument for prohibition:

Why are drugs illegal? Because they're dangerous, idiot!
How do we know they're dangerous? Because they're illegal, dipshit!

Where did you get this from? It doesn't look right to me. As far as I'm aware, heroin doesn't cause any physical damage, and tobacco is usually considered the most addictive drug.

"Long term use

Despite the myths, heroin is a relatively harmless drug, especially compared to alcohol or nicotine.

However, chronic heroin abuse can result in scarred and/or collapsed veins, bacterial infections of the blood vessels and heart valves, abscesses and other soft-tissue infections, and liver or kidney disease.

Constipation caused by a combination of poor eating and the effects of the drug on the bowels can lead to haemorrhoids. Addicts can also suffer from malnutrition because they're never hungry."

[ www.thegooddrugsguide.com ]

After spending some time in India, this doesn't surprise me in the least. According to the Hindu calendar we're living in the Kali Durga (dark age), and when you spend enough time in that part of the world its not hard to see why.

You might wanna re-take Psych 101 because your use of the terms ego and superego makes absolutely no sense.

Superego = the moral restrictions, rules, and demands internalized from society and from the parents
Ego = the part of the psyche that must try to fulfill the needs of the id according to the rules imposed by the superego

I do think your right about this being an issue of control, but what father does not want to control their teenage daughters in some way? Whether its to encourage certain religious practices, make sure they are going to school, or discourage behaviour that is perceived as harmful or immoral, all teenagers are faced with demands by their parents that arise out of issues of control.

What makes this case unusual is the exetreme manner in which the father responded to his daughter's rebellion.

Well, of course. All these studies are sponsored by organizations like NIDA which are vehemently anti-drug, and the only purpose of these studies is to provide anti-drug propaganda as another part of the arsenal in the war on drugs.

So, if your a scientist getting sponsorship from NIDA, you better design experiments that are methodologically rigged to show that drugs are harmful. Otherwise, you'd probably get your funding cut.

The scene is like this thread.

It just won't fucking die.