Pubdate: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 Source: Shepherd Express (WI) Copyright: 2003 Alternative Publications Inc. Contact: http://www.shepherd-express.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/414 Author: Jenn Danko Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raves.htm (Raves) RAVE ON The Government's New RAVE Act Could Put Many Innocent People Out Of Business Milwaukee club owners may soon be responsible for more than managing long lines at the door. A revised version of last year's highly publicized Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act was approved on April 10 by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Now dubbed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) tacked it on as an amendment to the proposed National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003, which deals with child abduction laws, not drug policies. While the name of the act has changed, its principal remains the same: by definition any businessperson, club owner or promoter will be liable for patrons who are using and/or selling illicit drugs on their properties or at their events. Unlike 2002's RAVE Act, the new legislation was not passed in Congress as a separate bill. It was part of legislation that was difficult to approve. Now President Bush is set to sign it into law sometime before Easter. "Don't panic just yet," says William McColl, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), on the pending legislation. While McColl and other DPA members are confident President Bush will approve the AMBER Alert Act within the next few weeks, he says the alliance is waiting to see to which extreme the anti-proliferation law will be enforced. "The question is how aggressively are the Department of Justice and the prosecutors going to use it?" McColl asks. "The most troubling aspect of this law is that it creates new civil penalties that lower the burden of proof." Taking Action McColl says that he and members of the DPA are already in the process of strategizing ways to improve, fix or repeal the pending law. In the meantime, local club owners and concert promoters will have to deal with the law until it is changed. "Drugs are something that are so small, you never know where people will carry them or where they will take them," says Mike Vitucci, who owns and operates four local nightspots, including the East Side's Mantra Lounge. "How do you know if someone didn't take them before they came into your bar or club?" Vitucci adds that the government's "pro-active" stance on the war on drugs takes pro-activity to an extreme measure. DPA members agree. They report that the legislation goes so far as to allow the federal government to charge property owners with a civil crime, thus allowing prosecutors to fine property owners $250,000 (and put them out of business) without having to meet the high standard of proof in criminal cases that is needed to protect innocent people. The organization goes on to contest that the act unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the actions of their customers. Business owners, landlords and restaurant and nightclub owners could be prosecuted even if they were not involved in drugs and took steps to stop such activity on their properties. Such legislation could also discourage business owners from implementing public safety measures, like having paramedics on call for large events because the owner risks prosecution, they contend. Far-reaching Effects The proposed legislation is not only limited to clubs. If approved, all property owners, including restaurateurs, landlords and even homeowners will be held liable for illegal drug activities occurring on their premises, even if they did not partake. The alliance argues that such actions are an infringement on personal freedoms. Adam Miklas, owner of the East Side's Dragon Lounge, agrees. "How can an owner be legally responsible for their patrons' actions in or out of their particular establishment?" Miklas asks. "Passing an act of this nature reflects lawmakers' willingness to compromise business owners' personal rights by piggy-backing it onto a truly legitimate bill, as with the AMBER Alert Network Act." Personal responsibility remains an issue of hot debate. "With this law, all responsibility is taken off of the person who is responsible for breaking the law and put onto the business owner-that's absurd," Vitucci says. Rise in building insurance costs and the loss of thousands of service industry jobs are other consequences that stem from the pending law. "It needs to have finer guidelines and not be so broad," Vitucci says. McColl agrees. He said the alliance will continue to be a watchdog and monitor how the law will be prosecuted. Civil penalties that will be associated with the law will result in lower legal standards and increased surveillance by the alliance, he says. "I don't feel like this is the end," McColl says. "This is the beginning. It's a long fight." For more information on the proposed legislation, visit www.drugpolicy.org. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom