OUTRAGED OVER RAVE

Joe Biden Wants To Make Your Party Illegal

Long-time Dig readers may recall a series of articles over the past two
years tracking the government's increasing concern with Ecstasy and what
the DEA has labeled "rave culture." This fall, the issue will once again be
highlighted by legislators as the Senate takes a vote on the proposed RAVE
(Reducing American's Vulnerability to Ecstasy) Act, designed to crack down
on Ecstasy use by imposing strict regulations on the electronic music scene
that legislators say is inherently linked to the distribution, sale and use
of "club drugs."

The RAVE Act is the brainchild of Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and is
co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Ruchard Durbin (D-Illinois). Introduced to
Senate on June 18, the RAVE Act has moved along with uncharacteristic
speed, passing the Senate Judiciary only a week later, and could go to a
floor vote as early as this week.

In order to understand the logic behind the act, it is important to know a
little bit of drug policy history, specifically Section 416 of the
Controlled Substances Act, more commonly known as the Crackhouse Statute.
The Crackhouse Statute currently criminalizes the operation of a place for
the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or using a controlled substance
and was developed, as its name suggests, to shut down crackhouses. However,
the narrow purpose for which it was created has been broadened since 2000,
when a landmark case saw the Crackhouse Statute applied to Ecstasy rather
than cocaine and raves rather than crackhouses. Operation Rave Review in
January 2000 used the Statute to prosecute a rave promoter and theater
manager working at the State Palace Theater in New Orleans. They neither
manufactured nor distributed the drug but operated a venue in which the
drug was used. The case stretched out well over a year, with the defendants
entering a Motion to Dismiss and the government ultimately withdrawing
individual charges in exchange for a corporate fine of $100,000. Both sides
claimed victory in the end, but it was difficult even for law enforcement
officials and politicians to deny the futility of trying to use legislation
that was, in many ways, irrelevant to the issue of Ecstasy use and
distribution. Thus, legislators began tying to concoct a bill that could
focus specifically on Ecstasy and the places where its use is assumed to be
most prevalent.

Enter the RAVE Act, which is essentially a series of amendments and
additions to the Crackhouse Statute that broadens its scope so as to make
it applicable to Ecstasy cases and prosecute them with greater success than
is attainable under current law. The specificity of these changes indicates
that Biden has been doing his homework - and that he is not afraid to make
significant logical leaps in order to suit his purposes.

One only needs to look at Section 2 of the RAVE Act, "Findings," to see
that there is a distinct agenda here, and that agenda is to diminish the
electronic music scene to the point of nonexistence. By defining raves in
Section 2.1 as "all night alcohol-free dance parties typically featuring
loud, pounding dance music" and placing them, (in Section 2.2) "in dance
clubs with only a handful of people in attendance" or "temporary venues
such as warehouses, open fields, or empty buildings, with tens of thousands
of people present," the RAVE Act covers its bases by identifying electronic
(and many other genres) music concerts in any and all forms as the point of
focus.

But perhaps the most provocative part of the Act is Section 3.3, which
finds that "the trafficking and use of 'club drugs,'" including Ecstasy or
MDMA, Ketamine, Rohypnol and GHB, "is deeply embedded in the rave culture,"
an assertion that suggests an inherent link between raves and drugs - a
link that many, ravers or otherwise, would dispute.

The stage is then set to tailor the Crackhouse Statute to fit
Ecstasy-related cases.

For example, drawing on the findings stated in Section 2.2, Section 3 of
the RAVE Act strikes a line in paragraph one of the Crackhouse Statute that
makes it illegal to "open or maintain any place" for the purpose of drug
manufacture, distribution, or use, and replaces it with "open, lease, rent,
use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily." And, to
ensure that no one involved can escape prosecution by finding loopholes in
the legislation, the section goes on to make it illegal to "manage or
control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner,
lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and
intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or
without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully
manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance."
Clearly, Biden means business.

And it's bad business, according to such organizations as the ACLU, EM:DEF
(Electronic Music Defense and Education Fund) and the Center for Cognitive
Liberty and Ethics, and bad for individuals who make their living or find
enjoyment in the electronic music scene.

While Chuck Grassley insists that promoters "don't have anything to worry
about" if their raves are the "safe, alcohol-free, drug-free places for
kids to socialize and dance" Grassley claims they are advertised as, the
opposition is poised to appeal on the basis of the act being
unconstitutional. The breadth of the RAVE Act's scope essentially conflates
raves with drug use, and thus incriminates the music form in addition to
the illegal behavior.

Simply put, according to Marv Johnson, an ACLU attorney, "It violates the
First Amendment." Some opponents point out that many musical forms have
historically been associated with some kind of drug culture and that
attacking music and performance to get at the (loosely) linked problem of
drug use will eliminate valuable forms of art and expression. It's hard to
imagine the government holding the owners of the Tweeter Center responsible
for all the pot smoked, possessed and sold at any of a host of shows
presented at the venue - but if Biden and company gets their way, the folks
who run Raves will be held responsible for Ecstasy use at their venues.
Others cite concern for the safety of ravers and youth in general.

Richard Boire, an attorney with the Center for Cognitive Liberty and
Ethics, explains that the government's zero-tolerance policy "makes it hard
to get accurate information about how to reduce the harms associated with
Ecstasy," thus putting at risk the very people the RAVE Act purports to
protect. Graham Boyd, with the Drug Policy Litigation department of the
ACLU, fears that such stringent legislation will eliminate safety nets
currently in place for ravers - by eliminating the availability of chill
rooms, water and ambulances - because offering such safeguards may be akin
to "knowingly" operating an illegal rave according to the RAVE act.

Boyd's point implicitly calls the constructiveness of the drug war in
general into question.

Most people will agree that stringent "Just Say No" and zero-tolerance
tactics have been dreadfully unsuccessful and have, in some cases, caused
more damage than they have prevented.

In the case of the RAVE Act especially, it is hard not to wonder whether
such overarching and restrictive legislation is more about political image
than serving the best interests of the American people.