ILL-INFORMED BILL TO COUNTER ECSTASY USE IN CLUBS IS NOTHING TO RAVE ABOUT

Nearly 20 years ago I had an experience at a very large event that truly
scared me. I watched a friend, clearly under the influence of a drug, pitch
headfirst into a wall. Fortunately there was water and an ambulance on the
scene. He spent the night in the infirmary and returned to us, chastened.

I was reminded of that incident because a rapidly moving bill in the U.S.
Senate may force nightclub owners and promoters to eliminate having water
or ambulances available in case of trouble. Senators on the Judiciary
Committee, famed for their ability to bottle up judicial nominees for
years, introduced the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE)
Act and got it on the legislative calendar in less than a month.

This is troubling because there has been no public input, not even a hearing.

Sadly, the acronym alone makes the bill almost impossible to oppose. That's
a shame because this bill sorely begs scrutiny.

In essence, the legislation would change the mid-1980s' "crack house" law
to allow prosecution of rave promoters and owners of property on which
drugs, including marijuana, may be used. This is a novel use of the law,
which targets landlords who allow housing to be used for drug transactions
that create long-term community problems.

The bill appears to be an ill-informed response to a failed prosecution of
two New Orleans rave promoters in 2000. The promoters ultimately agreed to
ban items that the Drug Enforcement Agency termed "drug
paraphernalia"--pacifiers, glow sticks and bottled water--from future
events. Fortunately, the ban was overturned on appeal.

Also in 2000, New York City shut down a nightclub, citing the presence of
ambulances as evidence that the owners "knew" that drug use was occurring
on the property.

Had there been a public hearing, the Senate would know the bill is too
broad. It allows prosecution of people who "knowingly open, lease, rent,
use or maintain a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or
using a controlled substance." Sounds fine except that "knowingly" and "for
the purpose of" are too unspecific to provide adequate protection to
innocent businesspeople.

Additionally, the bill allows prosecutors to charge owners civilly,
lowering the standard of proof for conviction. Thus, despite good security,
an owner could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's not just businesspeople who are in jeopardy. The bill would make it a
federal crime to temporarily use a place for the purpose of using marijuana
or other drugs. Thus, homeowners who use drugs in their own home or throw a
party at which a guest uses drugs could face fines and up to 20 years in
prison. In states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes,
this bill would make it a federal crime to rent property to medical
marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Because the bill would push licensed owners out of hosting musical events,
raves and other musical events would go further underground and away from
emergency care and hospitals. Moreover, by insinuating that selling bottled
water, offering air-conditioned "cool off" rooms and having ambulances
present is proof that owners and promoters know that drug use is occurring
at their events, the bill may make business owners too afraid to implement
safety measures.

As for the incident with my friend, well, the event was a University of
Michigan football game and the drug was alcohol. He went face down while
attempting a high-five. We were glad to have that water, and we were glad
that Michigan had an ambulance crew waiting.

The unintended consequences of this bill would be severe. Senators should
delay and fix the legislation or vote it down.