Ma seeks to ban raves in latest War on Fun offensive

12.22.10 - 4:03 pm | Steven T. Jones |

(11)

We've seen this movie before

Someone needs to tell Assembly member Fiona Ma that the '90s – with its myopic War on Drugs mentality, ascendant rave scene, and chest-beating “tough on crime” political one-upsmanship – are over, even though we're still paying that era's bills. Because Ma just introduced AB 74, which seeks to bans raves in California.

Why now? Well, her website says this “historic legislation” was written “on the heels of recent drug-related tragedies in Los Angeles and the Bay Area,” referring to three drug-related deaths at two events last May and June. And even though the same statement claims “attendance at raves can range from 16,000 to 185,000 people,” Ma somehow thinks that a few overdoses justifies a broad ban on dance parties (although she pointedly exempts live concerts, for reasons she doesn't explain, even though the exact same argument can be made about concerts).

As a representative from the vibrant city of San Francisco, Ma (who did not return our calls for comment) is an embarrassment, taking the already-regressive War on Fun efforts by so-called “moderate” politicians to a new low. But unfortunately, the effort to ban public dance parties has already gained traction at the federal level with provisions of the long-controversial RAVE Act – promoted by top Democrats as well as Republicans -- finally sneaking their way onto the books last year.

And now, Ma wants to get into the act, as always seeking to curry favor with the cops in the process (not to mention the alcohol industry, a prime funder of the War on Drugs and the ambitions of its political foot soldiers such as Ma). If they get their way, nothing short of our basic constitutional right of freedom of assembly is at risk, and that should be of concern to people of all ideological stripes.

War on Fun

Comments

This is the dumbest piece of legislation to come along

In a long, long time. What is Fiona Ma thinking?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 22, 2010 @ 4:59 pm

Steve Jones as Lavrentiy Beria

Ma's just continuing the progressive "I know how you should be living your life" mentality. Her "historic" legislation can be lumped in with all the idiotic peasant control schemes you have cheered for.

You have no one to blame but yourselves. It's odd that you think you can strive to force a nanny state on us dumb peasants and not get caught up in it yourselves.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 22, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

Idiot...

Maybe she should outlaw dancing, because sometimes it can result in sore feet.

Posted by Nate on Dec. 22, 2010 @ 6:55 pm

Drew Nasty?

Remember Samson Wong? http://www.sfusualsuspects.com/Samson/pn0902.html

District 4 supervisorial candidate Fiona Ma has been busy lately, distancing herself from a brief business relationship with a candidate whose unflattering career as an entertainer recently surfaced.

Ma has said her association with Lee ended in 1998 and lasted only long enough for her to shepherd the production of one R&B song for him as a favor to his mother - Housing Authority commissioner Julie Lee.

The song was relatively clean, compared to the ones that Lee (operating under the stage name Drew Nasty) later created .

Ma responded only after rival supervisorial candidate Lee claimed that Ma supervised his work on sexually explicit sound tracks.

Until recently, Ma and Lee were cordial -there existed the possibility that if one won the November primary to qualify for a December runoff, the loser would support the winner.

The attempt by Lee to tar Ma with the same brush that has tainted him reveals Lee's concern about Ma's candidacy. Added to that, perhaps his customer-service message isn't resonating with voters, especially seniors, who make up one-third of District 4 voters.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 10:01 am

who will save the children Steve?

Dear lord "progressives" think of the children... and young people. Thankfully we have leftwing-a-loons like Mar and Ma and Steve and the rest of the Bay Guardian authoritarians to tell us all whats good for ourselves.

Steve, its for the children, the CHILDREN, did you see that, stop being so concerned about yourself and your petty liberties and knuckle under for the children, the CHILDREN!

"There are certain events at these facilities that don't cause this type of outcome, and there are others that do, typically where younger people gather. The drugs seem to be linked to these types of activities," Ma said. "We will save lives and resources. Everyone knows this is happening, but nobody is doing anything."

"The legislation, which sponsors said is intended to promote healthy eating and help combat childhood obesity, was passed on an 8-3 vote - the bare minimum needed to overturn Mayor Gavin Newsom's promised veto.

The board is scheduled to take a final vote next week. If it goes on the books, the restrictions wouldn't go into effect until December 2011.

"This is a tremendous victory for our children's health," said Supervisor Eric Mar, chief sponsor of the legislation.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 10:45 am

Vile trolls

There's nothing progressive about creating a police state, you vile troll, and I defy you to find anything that I've written supporting creation of a nanny state. The only activist government I advocate is in redistributing the wealth and resources that the rich have plundered from this country and planet, and in taking reasonable steps to provide the basic social services, public health systems, human rights safeguards, and environmental protections that any compassionate and enlightened beings know are necessary for modern society to be functional and just. Despite your repeated inaccurate accusations (which I usually try to ignore), I didn't support the happy meal ban, smoking restrictions, the banning of handguns, or any of the other initiatives that you've used in your arguments against me. I have no desire to regularly correct your idiocy, which you offer on an almost daily basis, because that would just give you (and Lucretia, who shares your strange and equally fact-challenged compulsive criticism) the validation you so desperately crave, even though some casual readers might think I'm conceding your points. So, in closing, Matlock and the other venomous attention-seekers, I just want to wish you well in this holiday season, and I hope that you can find peace with whatever demons are plaguing your troubled soul. Good luck.

Posted by steven on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 11:39 am

So you're not a "progressive?"

Now I know, you get to pick and choose your way through progressive ideology. You're a fawning lackey and apologist to the leadership, the board of supes progressives set an agenda and you and your paper snap to it. Your goofy boss and paper endorse and advocate for all these anti-liberty schemes and politicians, but you get to have some nuance. I see.

My mistake, I never would have guessed, after all your hagiographies and supplicating that you are not a progressive?

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

I supported your position on this bill Steven

If anything I'm more radical than you on my support for drug legalization and in my support of the electronic music community.

Fiona Ma is 100% wrong on this bill, which is so poorly crafted as to be entirely contradictory on several of its supposed aims, and as one of her constituents I've written her a letter saying so.

Grow from love Steven.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

Banning life's freedoms due to the possibility of death

Despite being a less-than-stellar supervisor, I thought Fiona was on her way up. She is pretty-much a declared candidate for Leland Yee's senate seat (should he become the next mayor).

But what the f*** is she thinking? She's trying to do damage control on her facebook account, but I think the damage to her image is permanent.

Why would anyone let a reactionary accountant like her determine where I can or cannot party?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

Banning life's freedoms due

Banning life's freedoms due to the possibility of death? I thought her star was headed upwards, but she's way too reactionary to call herself a San Franciscan.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2010 @ 2:52 pm

Impossible Law WONT work.

This wont work, live acts flourish in the rave scene these days. Even if this passes, how will they prove the music was "pre-recorded"? All they have to do is put a live act on stage every 3 1/2 hours and they are no longer in violation of this silly, silly law. This will be a mess for law enforcement, and impossible to enforce. This will tie up law enforcement and city funds will be lost to countless legal battle as the city, time and time again fails to adequately prove the defendant broke this law.

Besides, what about concerts and sports games,they play pre-recorded music as well. Byonce, and even U2 and Roger Waters, play to pre-recorded click track. You guessed it, pre-recorded music.

"Welcome to our city! Thank you for bring your music and art and btw here is a 30,000,000 fine. Thanks U2! Loved the show." Ma ~

So i get that you want to fight drugs Ma, but you can hardly expect to be taken serious when you can not even write a useable law. You should be removed from office for this complete failure on your part.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 28, 2010 @ 10:09 am