DJ DiGiTize
To those in the USA:
It affects raves, hip-hop shows, marijuana rallies, and jam-band circuits.
It passed into law because they attached it to the end of the "AMBER Alert" bill (the kinapping alert law). It unjustly holds event promoters accountable (20 years in prison) for crimes that they try to prevent, but ultimately have no control over.
See for yourself...try to help if you can.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/05_28_03rave.cfm
http://www.nomoredrugwar.org/music/rave_act.htm
-digitize
It affects raves, hip-hop shows, marijuana rallies, and jam-band circuits.
It passed into law because they attached it to the end of the "AMBER Alert" bill (the kinapping alert law). It unjustly holds event promoters accountable (20 years in prison) for crimes that they try to prevent, but ultimately have no control over.
See for yourself...try to help if you can.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/05_28_03rave.cfm
http://www.nomoredrugwar.org/music/rave_act.htm
-digitize
geposted Sat 31 May 03 @ 2:41 am
sbogdan
Here's a great article on this terrible law from the NY Times.
NYT editorial on the "RAVE" act
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/opinion/30SULL.html
During Prohibition, the government required that industrial alcohol be poisoned, typically with methanol, to keep it from being converted into cocktails. If bootleggers did not completely remove the adulterant, it could cause blindness, paralysis and death. Thus a measure aimed at discouraging alcohol consumption made it more hazardous for those who continued to drink.
A similar dynamic can be seen in today's war on drugs. The latest example is a law President Bush signed last month. The measure, attached to the Amber Alert bill by Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, holds club owners responsible for drug use on their property. The main target — reflected in the rider's original name, the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) bill — is the all-night dance parties, or raves, where the drug MDMA, also called Ecstasy, is popular.
The act prohibits "knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or using any controlled substance." Given this broad language, anyone who organizes or rents space for an event where drug use takes place could face criminal charges. Not only is the law unlikely to keep people from using Ecstasy, it could magnify the drug's dangers by pushing raves further underground and discouraging voluntary efforts to protect users from serious harm.
The most significant short-term risk associated with MDMA is its impairment of the body's ability to regulate temperature. Overheating is a special concern at raves, where people may dance vigorously in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces for hours at a time.
For years volunteer groups like DanceSafe have been passing out fliers at raves and night clubs with advice on how to avoid dangerous overheating — drink water, take frequent breaks, abstain from alcohol (which compounds dehydration). Event sponsors have helped by providing bottles of water and ventilated "chill out" rooms, measures intended not to encourage drug use but to reduce drug-related harm. Under the new law, however, such sensible precautions could be seen as evidence that the host or owner knew guests would be using drugs, exposing him to $250,000 or more in civil penalties, a criminal fine of up to $500,000, and a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
It could also be incriminating to allow DanceSafe or other groups to set up tables to test drugs for purity. Such testing is an important safety step because tablets sold as MDMA sometimes contain the cough suppressant dextromethorphan, which can block perspiration, impede the metabolism of MDMA and have disturbing psychoactive effects in high doses. Another drug sometimes passed off as MDMA is paramethoxyamphetamine, which is potentially lethal in high doses. On-site testing can prevent bad reactions and deaths, but how many nightclub owners or landlords will risk a prison sentence or ruinous fines by allowing it?
In addition, the anti-rave legislation is likely to push events toward clandestine sites, where conditions will be less safe, supervision less responsible and emergency help less prompt. At remote locations, drug reactions that might otherwise have been quickly treated could turn deadly.
There is no question that MDMA can be dangerous, and legitimate questions remain about its long-term effects on memory. However, it is rarely linked with fatalities: the federal Drug Abuse Warning Network counted fewer than 10 MDMA-related deaths in 1999, the last year for which national totals were reported. The paradox is that the new law could lead to a rise in that number.
In response to criticism of the law, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was one of its original sponsors, called for "a more narrowly crafted bill" aimed at promoters "holding events in order to profit from the illegal distribution of Ecstasy." With the law on the books, the question now is how broadly it will be applied. The Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates more flexible drug laws, is asking the Justice Department to give the term "knowingly" a narrow reading. Such discretion may anger drug war hard-liners, but it could also save lives.
Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, is author of ``Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use.''
NYT editorial on the "RAVE" act
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/30/opinion/30SULL.html
During Prohibition, the government required that industrial alcohol be poisoned, typically with methanol, to keep it from being converted into cocktails. If bootleggers did not completely remove the adulterant, it could cause blindness, paralysis and death. Thus a measure aimed at discouraging alcohol consumption made it more hazardous for those who continued to drink.
A similar dynamic can be seen in today's war on drugs. The latest example is a law President Bush signed last month. The measure, attached to the Amber Alert bill by Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, holds club owners responsible for drug use on their property. The main target — reflected in the rider's original name, the Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) bill — is the all-night dance parties, or raves, where the drug MDMA, also called Ecstasy, is popular.
The act prohibits "knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing or using any controlled substance." Given this broad language, anyone who organizes or rents space for an event where drug use takes place could face criminal charges. Not only is the law unlikely to keep people from using Ecstasy, it could magnify the drug's dangers by pushing raves further underground and discouraging voluntary efforts to protect users from serious harm.
The most significant short-term risk associated with MDMA is its impairment of the body's ability to regulate temperature. Overheating is a special concern at raves, where people may dance vigorously in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces for hours at a time.
For years volunteer groups like DanceSafe have been passing out fliers at raves and night clubs with advice on how to avoid dangerous overheating — drink water, take frequent breaks, abstain from alcohol (which compounds dehydration). Event sponsors have helped by providing bottles of water and ventilated "chill out" rooms, measures intended not to encourage drug use but to reduce drug-related harm. Under the new law, however, such sensible precautions could be seen as evidence that the host or owner knew guests would be using drugs, exposing him to $250,000 or more in civil penalties, a criminal fine of up to $500,000, and a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
It could also be incriminating to allow DanceSafe or other groups to set up tables to test drugs for purity. Such testing is an important safety step because tablets sold as MDMA sometimes contain the cough suppressant dextromethorphan, which can block perspiration, impede the metabolism of MDMA and have disturbing psychoactive effects in high doses. Another drug sometimes passed off as MDMA is paramethoxyamphetamine, which is potentially lethal in high doses. On-site testing can prevent bad reactions and deaths, but how many nightclub owners or landlords will risk a prison sentence or ruinous fines by allowing it?
In addition, the anti-rave legislation is likely to push events toward clandestine sites, where conditions will be less safe, supervision less responsible and emergency help less prompt. At remote locations, drug reactions that might otherwise have been quickly treated could turn deadly.
There is no question that MDMA can be dangerous, and legitimate questions remain about its long-term effects on memory. However, it is rarely linked with fatalities: the federal Drug Abuse Warning Network counted fewer than 10 MDMA-related deaths in 1999, the last year for which national totals were reported. The paradox is that the new law could lead to a rise in that number.
In response to criticism of the law, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was one of its original sponsors, called for "a more narrowly crafted bill" aimed at promoters "holding events in order to profit from the illegal distribution of Ecstasy." With the law on the books, the question now is how broadly it will be applied. The Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates more flexible drug laws, is asking the Justice Department to give the term "knowingly" a narrow reading. Such discretion may anger drug war hard-liners, but it could also save lives.
Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, is author of ``Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use.''
geposted Sat 31 May 03 @ 9:18 pm