A rchive Date
[ 29-05-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[Just who are the raving lunatics here?
There's a big difference between being afraid of your children and afraid for your children By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
Toronto Sun
Sunday, May 28, 2000
I guess what I'd ask these oh-so-sophisticated adults insisting that it's a gross overreaction to be concerned about kids taking Ecstasy at raves, is this. Okay, then, would you do it?
Say, every weekend for a year, purchased in the same way the kids are getting it now - from strangers in crowded, dark rooms at huge parties, unregulated by anyone other than the promoters, who are making money hand over fist.
Would you do that, or not? No? You know better? Oh, I see.
Well then, what if your own child was taking Ecstasy, every weekend for a year, in the same way. Would it worry you?
Hey, you're a happenin' dad (or mom), right? You lived through the '60s and '70s, and not without experimenting with some pretty wild stuff yourself, you don't mind saying.
So, chances are your own kids, if they ever do take drugs at a rave, will be okay, right? Still feeling smug, are we? Still eager to ridicule the concerns of parents who worry about raves and drugs? What's that line so popular with you folks?
Oh, yeah. That parents worried about raves and drugs must be afraid of their own children. Wow. Deep.
Except, maybe, when your own kids are a little older, when they're still great kids but you no longer know where they are almost all the time, and each day they're demanding more and more freedom just as you did at their age, you'll come to understand the difference between being afraid of your children and being afraid for your children.
And why each time they're out on their own, you'll pray to a God you thought you were too cool to believe in that you never have to face that phone call or that knock on the door from a cop that will turn your world into dust in a moment.
Calls like the one Allen Ho's mom must have received after her son, 20, died of an Ecstasy overdose at a rave in a garage last October. Remember what she said: "I'm really hurt, I don't want to see other parents hurt. My son died at the party. Nobody takes responsibility. I'm really angry."
Now, why don't you try out some of your bafflegab about parents being afraid of their kids and see how it works on her?
Maybe you could elaborate on your nifty little philosophy that, like, well, sorry, but her kid just happened to be a loser in the great drug "lottery" which is all a part of growing up.
What is it with you people? If you don't believe the mayor of Toronto that raves and drugs are a concern - because you think he's a geek; if you don't believe the police chief - because you think he's in a moral panic; how about the deputy chief coroner of Ontario? Now, surely, he's more of an authority on drug use and raves than you and the person who sits in the next desk to you at work who, lo and behold, thinks just like you which means, of course, you both must be right.
The deputy chief coroner says the specific danger of Ecstasy - unlike alcohol, heroin or cocaine - is that it's being falsely advertised to young kids as if it's harmless when it's not.
An emergency room doctor who testified at the Ho inquest said she wants to get the message out to kids that one pill of Ecstasy can kill them. But hey, all she does is work in a downtown hospital that treats kids every weekend who come in having overdosed on club drugs, scared, unable to breathe properly, suffering from violent mood swings they later can't remember. What would she know, right?
So if you don't believe her, how about Toronto's ambulance service? What about their report to the city that at times the ambulance service has been so overwhelmed treating kids from drug overdoses at raves that whole neighborhoods have gone without ambulances for hours? What about the Toronto fire department, which said that the rave at which Ho died "had the potential for disastrous consequences?"
I recall a recent newspaper column ridiculing concerns about drugs and raves, illustrated by a shot of paramedics wheeling a kid on a stretcher out of last month's rave at Exhibition Place, the one some geniuses think should be a city-sponsored event. The cutline below the picture described the kid as a "Rave Casualty." Uh, can you say irony-free zone?
Finally, there's your argument that 13 Ecstasy-related deaths since 1998, three known to be at raves, is no big deal.
Right. By the time four people had died in Walkerton last week in an outbreak of E. coli, we all knew it was a disaster requiring urgent action. How many dead ravers will it take?
Liberal MPP Sandra Pupatello, after being contacted by a teacher in her Windsor West riding worried about the toll raves and drugs were taking on students, went out and researched the issue with educators, police and drug experts. She visited a rave where she was offered drugs within minutes and later introduced a private member's bill at Queen's Park to give municipalities the authority to regulate raves.
What does it say? Oh, things like it might be a good idea to prohibit rave permits to promoters who have, say, been convicted of drug offences in the past six months. And how were her efforts greeted by an oh-so-clever NDP politician? As an example of a "middle-aged, sour-faced politician" spoiling the kids' fun. Ah, excuse us. Passing a law giving cities the right to refuse rave permits to drug dealers is a bad idea?
Is that because, to quote another bright light, it's not the dealers, drugs and criminals that are the problem, but the "Inquisition-like cruelty of (their) prohibition."
Uh-huh. Tell us something. Are all you people nuts?
Lorrie can be reached at (416) 947-2212, by fax at (416) 947-3228 or by e-mail at lgoldste@sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA)]]
Cross-Indexed:
|
|