Tommy Jones Foundation
Dedicated to the Reduction of Youth Substance Abuse
P.O. Box 958, Granite Quarry, N.C. 28072
Home-704-633-3543 Work Fax-704-279-8205
February 26, 2001
To: Charlotte City Council
RE: Dance Hall Regulations
It's very disappointing that the Safety committee has greatly weakened
the original proposal. I'd like to remind you of the many dangers that
this toothless measure will allow:
Finally, please do not forget the original purpose of this ordinance. It
is meant to minimize the number of drug overdoses and medical emergencies
occurring, reduce date rape and other violent incidences and allow police
to concentrate on their real job of protecting all the citizens of Charlotte.
As is, the Public Safety committee's recommendation will do little to address
the above while hamstringing them even further with additional administrative
and security issues. I urge the city council to reject the Public safety
committee proposal and approve the original as proposed by the CMPD.
Regulation will legitimize the dance hall business. Their already
strong political power will grow enormously. This will make any future
strengthening of this regulation more difficult. (See attached
article). Therefore it makes sense to have a strong measure first.
Then if the provisions are too onerous they can be changed more easily
at a later date.
This regulation will create a new bureaucracy within the City government
that will require tax-payer financing. Originally, an outright
ban was proposed which would require little expenditures to enforce.
Has there been any cost calculation to determine what that might
be in light of the public safety committee's changes? In addition, this
new government bureaucracy will be a political force too that will always
be in favor of regulation(rather than banning like many in FL have already
Allowing 16-17 year-olds in adult dance clubs is a big risk. This group
is the most vulnerable to the physical and emotional rigors of the
rave and most likely to feel compelled to use club drugs in order to reach
"nirvana". Plus they'll have to reach this higher level faster in
order to beat the 2 a.m. closing time. Then there seems to be little consideration
that many of these youths(some with 6 month provisional
licenses) will be coming from surrounding cities and out on the roads
from 2 a.m. on. In Florida, if you are under 21, you must be out of a club
by 8 p.m. Why does the public safety committee proposal ignore this genuine
risk as well as the lessons to be learned from other communities who have
already endured the carnage caused by these raves?
Allowing 18-20 year-olds, at least past 2 a.m., is another mistake. While
not quite as vulnerable I again point you to the lesson that could be learned
simply by observing what has transpired in other States. Please do not
ignore these important opportunities to reduce the mayhem caused by these
Other attachments that I had copies of- Feb 2 2001 Canadian
city slams door on raves
Interesting news from a proraver site raversunity.com
and a good look
at how "progressive" this movement has become.
-Feb. 22, 2001 -Forum
on Ecstasy draws few in Douglas county. (Just goes to show how disinterested
parents are in reducing substance abuse. Relying on them(parents) to rise
up in opposition to anything relating to there kids is apparently a waste
-Feb. 14, 2001 - Ecstasy
counseling center proposed (after 16 year-old girl's death from drinking
too much water)