Pubdate: Wed, 11 Sep 2002
Source: Boston Weekly Dig (MA)
Copyright: 2002 Boston Weekly Dig
Contact:  http://www.weeklydig.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1515
Author: Danielle Ben-Veniste

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart