RAVE Act
|
|
The RAVE Act (an acronym for 'Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy') was a bill (S.2633) proposed, but not passed, during the 107th US Congress [1] (http://www.emdef.org/s2633/). It was later passed (S.226) as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act during the 108th US Congress, mostly unchanged and backed by the same sponsors.[2] (http://www.emdef.org/s226/) The original RAVE Act attracted a fair amount of attention and protest within the electronic music community, and although the act was ultimately passed under a different name, the term "RAVE Act" is quite well known and will be used in this discussion.
The original bill was introduced by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in 2002. The key provisions of the RAVE Act are modifications to the US Code (22 USC 856) [3] (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000856----000-.html), creating new civil penalties for owners or users of property upon which illegal drug trafficking activities are conducted. In particular, defendants could be fined up to $250,000, or double their gross receipts, whichever is greater.
The announced intent of the RAVE Act was to stem the distribution of controlled substances. However, opponents have argued that the bill unfairly depicts "rave culture" as so inseparable from "drug culture" as to legitimize the former as a target of drug enforcement. The Act is considered by some in the rave and electronic music community to be evidence of a "moral panic" regarding raves.
Opponents' complaints against the RAVE Act included:
- It is worded broadly enough that virtually any person conducting a trade at a rave could be liable under the law, including such innocuous activities as selling, or even handing out for free, bottled water. In particular, the 'Offenses' section of the original bill introduced language making it a violation to "profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, [any] place for the purpose of [...] using a controlled substance".
- Along the same lines, it could be considered to criminalize and thus discourage harm reduction measures, such as distributing condoms or offering testing of possibly illicit drugs to determine if they are some other, potentially dangerous, substance. Under this interpretation, if rave organizers accept the likelihood that some ravers will take Ecstasy no matter whether it is condoned or discouraged, the organizers must face a choice of: knowing drug use will happen and not making any preparations for it; making harm reduction measures such as chill-out rooms available but operating them at a loss; or making harm reduction measures available and facing the prospect of being prosecuted for them.
- It fails to distinguish between illegally and legally conducted raves, or for that matter, concerts or events of any kind. A common speculation in the electronic music community was that the Act could be used to fine a concert promoter for "allowing" an illicit marijuana transaction during a concert, even if the promoter took security measures to prevent such transactions from taking place.
Rebuttals to these complaints included:
- The Act does not criminalize any of these activities. Defendants could be fined, perhaps substantially, but would not face jail time for breaking the law.
- The RAVE Act includes "knowingly and intentionally" in its language, which would seem to put the burden of proof on the government in any such case. It would thus not imply penalties for the mere presence of vendors at an event where drug trafficking takes place.
The original RAVE Act (but not the eventually passed bill) contained a "Findings" section which stated the findings of Congress as reasons to pass the bill. The Findings section was rather harsh and sweeping in its indictment of raves in general, and was likely the cause of much of the outcry over the bill in the rave community. Point 4 of this section implied that providing security for a rave was an attempt to portray an unsafe event as safe:
- [Rave promoters] even go so far as to hire off-duty, uniformed police officers to patrol outside of the venue to give parents the impression that the event is safe.[4] (http://www.emdef.org/s226/)
This did not address the fact that hiring off-duty police officers for security is a practice common to many social gatherings, or the possibility that rave organizers might be hiring such security not just to create an appearance of safety but to actually provide a safer environment. Point 6 was undoubtedly a source of concern for rave vendors:
- Because rave promoters know that Ecstasy causes the body temperature in a user to rise and as a result causes the user to become very thirsty, many rave promoters facilitate and profit from flagrant drug use at rave parties or events by selling over-priced bottles of water and charging entrance fees to 'chill-rooms' where users can cool down.[5] (http://www.emdef.org/s226/)
The "Findings" section was eventually deleted from the Act as passed, and Senator Biden was careful to explain why:
- Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, etc. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is "for the purpose of" drug use.[6] (http://www.emdef.org/s226/)