Pubdate: Wed, 20 Aug 2003
Source: Reason Online (US Web)
Copyright: 2003 The Reason Foundation
Contact:  http://www.reason.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2688
Author: Jacob Sullum
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mdma.htm (Ecstasy)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raves.htm (Raves)

IS IT THE MUSIC?

The Crackdown On Raves Continues.

Sen. Joseph Biden's anti-rave law is only a few months old, but other drug 
warriors in Congress are already trying to improve upon it. Two bills would 
make it easier to hold event sponsors liable for drug use by their guests. 
And unlike the final version of Biden's legislation, both explicitly target 
raves.

When Biden introduced the bill that became this year's Illicit Drug 
Anti-Proliferation Act, the Delaware Democrat called it the Reducing 
Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act. The "findings" section 
began: "Each year tens of thousands of young people are initiated into the 
drug culture at 'rave' parties or events (all-night, alcohol-free dance 
parties typically featuring loud, pounding dance music)." The bill cited 
the characteristic signs of "rave culture," including "club drugs," chill 
rooms, neon glow sticks, massage oils, pacifiers, and menthol nasal inhalers.

The bill's opponents complained that Biden seemed to be attacking a 
particular genre of music and the lifestyle associated with it. He 
responded by changing the bill's name and taking out the language 
mentioning raves. But he left in the part that threatens people who 
"knowingly and intentionally" make a place available for drug use with up 
to 20 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil and 
criminal fines. The bill passed as a conference-committee amendment to a 
law ostensibly aimed at preventing child abductions, which President Bush 
signed on April 30.

The first known use of Biden's law involved a fund-raising concert for two 
drug policy reform groups, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and the 
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The concert, which 
was scheduled for May 30 at the Eagles Lodge in Billings, Montana, was 
canceled after a local agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
told the owners they could be held liable if anyone at the concert lit up a 
joint.

Embarrassed by the incident, the DEA blamed it on the agent's 
misinterpretation of the law. It promised "responsible enforcement" that 
would respect First Amendment rights and "shield innocent businesses from 
criminal liability for incidental drug use by patrons." In response to 
questions from Biden, Acting DEA Administrator William B. Simpkins said the 
requirements of "knowledge" and "intent" mean that "legitimate event 
promoters" should not "be concerned that they will be prosecuted simply 
based upon or just because of illegal patron behavior."

While critics of the war on drugs are worried that the DEA won't keep its 
word, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) seems to be worried that it will. Late 
last month he introduced the Ecstasy Awareness Act of 2003, under which 
anyone who "profits monetarily from a rave or similar electronic dance 
event, knowing or having reason to know that the unlawful use or 
distribution of a controlled substance occurs at the rave or similar event" 
is subject to a fine of up to $ 500,000 and a prison sentence of up to 20 
years.

By eliminating the intent requirement and watering down the knowledge 
requirement, this bill essentially would criminalize raves, where there is 
arguably always "reason to know" that someone is using drugs. And it would 
apply not just to sponsors but to anyone who "profits monetarily" from a 
rave. As Drug Policy Alliance lobbyist Bill Piper recently told The Austin 
Chronicle, "It would include Kinko's if they made fliers or anyone who 
delivers food or even the DJ. They're all making money from the event."

So far Pascrell's bill has only a few co-sponsors. Piper is more concerned 
about a provision in the Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize, and 
Undermine Production (CLEAN-UP) of Methamphetamines Act, which has more 
than 100 co-sponsors. The provision would establish a penalty of up to nine 
years in prison for "promoters of commercial drug-oriented entertainment." 
It applies to anyone who "knowingly promotes any rave, dance, music, or 
other entertainment event that takes place under circumstances where the 
promoter knows or reasonably ought to know that a controlled substance will 
be used."

Both of these bills are broad in the sense that they cover many people who 
are not involved in distributing drugs (and who may even be taking steps to 
discourage drug use). But they are also narrower than Biden's law, which 
applies to "any place," in the locations they cover. Pascrell seems to have 
a specific objection to electronic dance music, while the CLEAN-UP bill 
applies only to "entertainment." Having fun, in other words, is a crucial 
part of the offense.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason, is the author of Saying Yes: In 
Defense of Drug Use (Tarcher/Putnam).
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom