cannabisnews.com: S.F. Clubs Rip Feds' Rave Bill





S.F. Clubs Rip Feds' Rave Bill
Posted by CN Staff on April 30, 2003 at 10:30:04 PT
By Millicent Mayfield of The Examiner Staff
Source: San Francisco Examiner 
Tucked inside a package of child-protection laws about to be signed by President George Bush is a bill that local club owners and promoters fear would make them criminally responsible for the drug use of others.  The Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware), targets club promoters and building owners who hold rave events for the specific purpose of profiting from the drugs sold there.
The bill failed in Congress last year, when it was introduced as the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy -- or RAVE -- Act.  At the time, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed a resolution protesting the bill on the basis that it could easily and wrongfully convict innocent people.   Additionally, it could compromise freedom of expression at political demonstrations, such as those that advocate the legalization of marijuana, the supervisors said.  In January, however, the bill was renamed and slipped in as a rider to the popular National Amber Alert Network Act, which was created to help recover abducted children through highway alerts.   Those prosecuted under the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act could face a $250,000 fine or two times the gross receipts received from the event.  Biden has adamantly defended his bill, saying its intention is not to quash the rave scene.  Instead, he says, the bill would go after rogue promoters who prey on clubgoers by pushing drugs such as ecstasy and then make additional profits by overcharging them for water needed to reduce increased body heat, a side effect of the drug.  "We are hoping to deter illicit drug use and protect kids by providing law enforcement with a commonsense tool to go after rogue promoters," said Chip Unruh, Biden's spokesman.  Opponents, however, say the bill is too broad. Any club promoter and building owner could easily be turned into a criminal -- all it would take was one person doing drugs at an event they were hosting.  "We feel vulnerable, on red alert, if you will," said Carl Hanken, owner of the End Up, an all-night dance club on Sixth Street.  It's not uncommon for undercover drug-enforcement agents to come to the club, purchase drugs from a clubgoer, and then casually mention the incident to a bartender, Hanken said. If a bartender is too busy to call security, that could be interpreted as a club's support of drug use and legal action could result.  This, Hanken said, is unfair, considering that drugs can be purchased in public schools and in prisons.  "People can get drugs easily on the (Municipal Railway) system and nobody's going to shut the Muni system down," he added.  Those opposing the bill fear that, if the measure passes, club owners who hire security to screen patrons for drugs have paramedics standing by in case of overdoses, sell water, or provide a cool-down space for participants could be prosecuted for encouraging drug use.  "To do things like this increases their criminal liabilities," said Bill Piper of Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates for drug-policy reform. "There's really nothing a club owner can do to guarantee they won't be prosecuted."  In an effort to deflect attention, club owners could decide not to provide these services, creating a "very, very serious public nightmare" should an overdose occur, he added.  Critics also say that the bill could stymie the outreach efforts of organizations such as Dance Safe. This controversial nationwide group of volunteers provides education and pill tests at events to help users avoid taking fake drugs that could potentially be more dangerous.  "Having Dance Safe means promoters know that drugs are going to be present," said Reyna Olvera, a volunteer with Dance Safe. "Our presence can be used in defense of the police officials or whoever decides to take action."  Unruh disagrees with this, however, and says that these concerns are exaggerated and simply reflect misconceptions about Biden's bill.  "People who make good-faith efforts aren't going to have to worry about this bill," Unruh said. "The prosecutor will have to prove that the purpose of the event was the sale of drugs, and that's a pretty high bar to set."  Over the years, promoters and clubgoers have taken pains to remove the drug stigma by increasing education and by placing more emphasis on the positive and creative energy of the rave culture.  Despite these efforts, fatalities have occurred.  Drugs were the suspected cause of death for two men attending a New Year's Eve rave party at the Cow Palace in January. But it was a proliferation of drug overdoses in Louisiana that became the real impetus behind Biden's bill.  Two of the events' promoters were indicted under the federal "crack-house" law, which makes it a crime to use a building for the purpose of illicit drug activity.  Under Biden's bill, situations like this would be seen as drug use gone wild and in dire need of strict control.  In the view of the bill's opponents, such situations would be seen as placing the responsibility for the consequence of drug use on the wrong people.  "I think that what's really startling is that clearly [the promoters] knew people were using drugs in their establishment. They took steps both to increase security and deter drug dealers," Piper said. "They were doing essentially everything right. Yet, they still were prosecuted." Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)Author: Millicent Mayfield of The Examiner StaffPublished: April 29, 2003Copyright: 2003 San Francisco ExaminerContact: letters sfexaminer.comWebsite: http://www.examiner.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/Party Patrol: Law Could Spoil Your Summer Funhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16032.shtmlParty Busters - LA Weekly http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16013.shtmlMusic Promoters Fear Anti-Drug Clausehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15994.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by K-quay on February 27, 2004 at 09:43:10 PT:
serious news stories
Check this out www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1129330,00html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by K-quay on February 27, 2004 at 09:34:43 PT:
Re: just a dumb thought
Governmental agencies dont apply to the law but how about political rallies for an individuals campaign someone is sponsoring them lets all turn up and twist up for freedom 
Bill hicks may be long dead but his sentiments aren't anyone got a joint and a polaroid or hey if the republicans can stitch up kelly with a photo lets give the press a real photo industrial fans pointed to the stage methinks with 3000 tokers standing in front or stick a bonfire of weed into the airconditioning He! He!
Peace and fluffy vibes a limey Raver 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Darwin on April 30, 2003 at 14:25:51 PT
unconstitutional
I think the ninth circuit will find this unconstitutional.
This may end up at the supreme court.
With this law the government can pick out a bar, club, or anything privately owned, send in a shill with a joint, then bust the shill. Now the owner of the club owes the government 250,000 dollars. This is like forfeiture laws on steriods.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dark Star on April 30, 2003 at 14:08:18 PT
Is That What You Mean?
Druid, do you mean that people should engage in civil disobedience? Resistance, opposition, that whole Thoreau kind of thing? Sounds good to me. The powers that be must be reminded of the folly of their ways as the last of our civil rights vanish down the toilet of repressive governance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on April 30, 2003 at 14:05:59 PT
druid
You made good points. Will the Rave act stop Raves or will it stop big concerts too? Can you imagine a Rolling Stone concert being cancelled because of fear of prosecution? This must stop somewhere. The more awareness that is brought to drug policy issues the more it shows the world something must change. Even negative news articles will be good for us in the future.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by druid on April 30, 2003 at 13:46:09 PT
just a dumb thought
If the feds were misusing this RAVE act nonsense to the extreme and busting concerts and raves and other events, what would happen if people started showing up at Gov't sponsored events and toked up or something? You know acts of civil disobedience and such by those willing to take such risks. Could a person or organization sue the gov't for not applying the laws to themselves as equally as they are to others?Laws don't apply to govt's though so I guess the point is moot.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by afterburner on April 30, 2003 at 11:08:51 PT:
Next on the Court Docket.
Will this proposed law be applied to tobacco and alcohol or places where they are sold? In my travels I have visited several bars/taverns/pubs in the USA and Canada and seen cigarette vending machines on display. Are these events for the specific purpose of profiting from the drugs sold there? I also remember dancing in a Toronto pub while the waiters kept barging through, annoyed that we were blocking the flow of alcoholic drinks. Is this an example of events for the specific purpose of profiting from the drugs sold there?Tobacco and alcohol patients, join the crusade for freedom of expression. Your music is on trial, or will be next. Don't tread on me. ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no problem.
RUN THROUGH THE JUNGLE (J.C. Fogerty of CCR)
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment