Pubdate: Fri, 20 Jun 2003
Source: Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Copyright: 2003 The Salt Lake Tribune
Contact:  http://www.sltrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/383
Author: Robyn Blumner, St. Petersburg Times
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/raves.htm (Raves)

NEW ANTI-DRUG LAW LEAVES ROOM FOR ABUSE BY ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS

I have to admit, I've never been to a rave party. For me, not only have 
those days come and gone, they never were. I know about them, though. Rave 
parties are loud, raucous affairs, where young adults dance into the early 
morning to the pounding beat of electronic music. And there is often drug 
use, the methamphetamine known as Ecstasy to be exact.

The trick in a free society, where cultural expression -- even the 
annoyingly unmelodic kind -- must be allowed to flourish, is to punish 
illegal behavior without disturbing the exuberance of art and expression.

But communities and law enforcement aren't interested in such deftness. It 
is far easier to go after the rave parties themselves than to focus on the 
actual drug dealers inside. Close the raves and you solve the problem. The 
"war on drugs" shakes hands with the culture war, making both 
prohibitionists and moralists happy -- all who matter from a political vantage.

The government's antagonism toward raves has been apparent for years. In an 
information bulletin put out by the Department of Justice in 2001, the 
department described raves as commercialized events that were "little more 
than an exploitation of American youth."

The bulletin listed ways that communities and law enforcement agencies were 
"curtail[ing] rave activity," such as by strictly enforcing fire codes, 
enacting juvenile curfews and establishing new licensing rules for large 
public gatherings.

Yet, even in the face of this kind of hostility, the rave culture has 
thrived. So in April, Congress added another arrow to the quiver of the 
anti-rave effort.

The Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, formerly known as the RAVE Act, 
passed without a single hearing. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, inserted it 
into the popular Amber Alert bill, the bill creating a nationwide 
kidnapping early-warning system, during the conference committee. It had 
not been part of either the Senate or House versions.

The law threatens dance club owners and event promoters with 20 years in 
prison and $250,000 fines if prosecutors can show they intentionally 
allowed drug use on the premises.

Critics warned that such stiff penalties and the mere fear of prosecution 
would sharply curtail the rave scene. But the law's defenders and Biden in 
particular insisted that it would be so narrowly applied there would be no 
chilling effect.

"The purpose of my legislation," said Biden to his colleagues in Congress, 
"is not to prosecute legitimate, law-abiding managers of . . . venues 
because of incidental drug use at their events." Biden said his bill would 
only impact "rogue promoters" who put on events "for the purpose of" 
illicit drug use.

Ah, promises, promises. Put a broadly written law in the hands of police 
and the rational constraints claimed by the law's sponsors can easily go 
poof. It didn't take long for the nightmare scenario laid out by the law's 
opponents to come true.

Last month, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent hand-delivered a copy 
of the law to the manager of the Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodge in 
Billings, Mont., just a few hours before the local chapters of the National 
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and Students for a Sensible 
Drug Policy were scheduled to hold a benefit concert. The money raised was 
to go to underwrite a campaign to get a medical marijuana initiative on the 
2004 ballot.

According to media reports about the incident, the Eagles Lodge manager 
wasn't threatened or told to cancel the concert by Special Agent in Charge 
Jeff Sweetin, who runs the DEA's Rocky Mountain Division, but she was told 
if there was drug use on the premises the owners could be fined $250,000.

Not surprisingly, the lodge canceled the event.

In trying to figure out whether this is the start of a trend, and we will 
soon find the DEA at the door of rave clubs and drug-legalization 
fund-raising events waving around the new law for effect, I spoke with Will 
Glaspy, a DEA spokesman in Washington.

He refused to discuss the specifics of the Billings incident but said the 
law should be used against an "owner or promoter who is putting on an event 
in order to facilitate drug trafficking," implying that the Billings case 
was an aberration. But when asked if the Billings case would be the subject 
of an internal investigation, Glaspy refused to say. He also refused to say 
whether the DEA had guidelines narrowly construing what was illegal under 
the Rave Act.

Biden's office says it wants better answers than these and is formally 
asking for an accounting.

What is needed is safe harbor language. Give club owners a list of actions 
they can take to protect themselves from liability, such as hiring security 
guards to watch for drug activity in the club.

Certainty is the key. Otherwise, raves will be driven further underground. 
The drug use won't end, but the basic health precautions that legitimate 
businesses provide will.

Music, dancing and subculture expression are just the newest victims of the 
drug war.

So party on, that is, until the government knocks on your door to tell you 
about a new law . . .

Tribune Media Services
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom