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.