NEW DRUG ACT GOES TOO FAR

On April 11, the war on drugs took another dangerous turn with a new piece
of legislation. The RAVE Act, supposedly a masterstroke against drug users
in this country, instead became a piece of vaguely defined police state
rhetoric. To sum it up quickly, the RAVE Act is designed to allow the
government to punish business owners if they "knowingly" allowed drug use
to happen on their property. Even though it looks fine and legal, the RAVE
Act is anything but.

Under its Senate name, the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act (which I
will still call the RAVE Act) was "secretly" added to Tom Daschle's bill S.
22 -- a domestic security bill. The two bills piggy-backed each other.
Since no congressman dared to vote against a homeland security bill, the
RAVE Act passed, 98-0. This vaguely worded bill poses a danger to business
owners and innocent citizens everywhere.

First, a definition. The RAVE Act and the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation
Act are almost the exact same bills. As previously mentioned, the RAVE Act
gives the government the power to prosecute business owners if drugs are
used or sold on their property. Even if business owners did all they could
to keep drug usage out, they still can be charged with a crime if one
person sneaks through. If tried in a civil court (where proving guilt is
easier than in a criminal court), an arrested business owner can face a
fine of up to $250,000. If tried criminally, there can be up to a $500,000
fine and up to 20 years in jail. All of this for someone who never actually
took drugs, and who may not even have known that drug-related activity was
taking place on his property.

But wait, it gets better! The bill says if the owner can only be tried if
they "knowingly" allow drug usage to take place. "Knowingly" and words like
it in the bill are so vaguely defined that they could mean almost anything.
If a promoter invites a jam band onstage, does that mean they "knowingly"
allowed drug usage to take place? Fans of jam bands often smoke dope, so
does that mean that the promoter "knowingly" allows dope? The RAVE Act
doesn't say. Of course, this leads to profiling of musical artists. And,
theoretically, couldn't you take drugs at a Sesame Street Live concert? I
don't think that promoter "knowingly" promoted a pot-friendly band, but the
punishment for him would be the same.

Also included in S. 22 is the "crack house law." To sum it up, if drug
usage takes place on your property, then you can be charged as well. Once
again, even if you did all you could to keep drug deals away, you could
still be charged.

This is ridiculous. Imagine this legal mold being used to treat other
crimes. If you were a shopkeeper and someone robbed you, then you could be
arrested too. After all, you did fail to keep a robbery from happening in
your store.

The "crack house law" also makes it a federal crime to use a place
"temporarily" for drug usage. Since federal law overrides state law, the
RAVE Act would also make it illegal for a landlord to rent to someone who
uses medical marijuana.

The war on drugs cannot even keep drug usage out of prisons or schools, but
now they want to keep it out of businesses, too. It has failed time and
time again, but is always expanding. The RAVE Act is so poorly defined and
can be executed so liberally that innocent people could be punished for
others' indiscretions.