cannabisnews.com: When Holding a Party Is a Crime When Holding a Party Is a Crime Posted by CN Staff on May 30, 2003 at 11:14:34 PT By Jacob Sullum Source: New York Times 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. -- http://www.reason.com/sayingyes/Source: New York Times (NY)Author: Jacob SullumPublished: May 30, 2003Copyright: 2003 The New York Times CompanyContact: letters nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:DanceSafehttp://www.dancesafe.org/S.F. Clubs Rip Feds' Rave Billhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16114.shtmlParty Patrol: Law Could Spoil Your Summer Funhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16032.shtmlMusic Promoters Fear Anti-Drug Clausehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15994.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #10 posted by FoM on June 10, 2003 at 20:33:25 PT afterburner I sure hope we see lots of news articles. This is very important and it seriously needs press coverage. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by afterburner on June 10, 2003 at 19:49:36 PT: RAVE: All the More Reason to Re-Legalize Cannabis If cannabis is legal, then this wolf-in-sheep's-clothing law can no longer hold its ugly fangs over our heads. ego transcendence follows ego destruction, no matter how much they try to huff and puff and blow our house down. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on June 10, 2003 at 16:02:50 PT The RAVE Act Has Landed The RAVE Act Has LandedBy Phillip S. Smith, DRCNetJune 11, 2003 IssueThe DEA used the new RAVE Act to shut down a May 30 benefit concert for two Montana groups advocating marijuana legalization, proving critics’ fears that the law would not only be used to keep kids off ecstasy, but as a tool to silence drug war opponents. The concert, a joint benefit for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy, was called off by the manager of the venue after she received threats from a local DEA agent of a $250,000 fine if someone at the event smoked a joint, according to a report by Phillip S. Smith of DRCNet.The RAVE Act, authored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), was intended to target the electronic music shows, called raves, which are known for open use of the drug ecstasy, by making it a crime for the owner of a venue to knowingly host an event where illegal drugs are used. Opponents of the law, fearing that it would be used to infringe on the free speech of groups advocating drug law reform, were able to block it in Congress last year. But Biden attached it as an amendment to the popular Amber Alert bill passed in May.“[The DEA agent] didn't tell us we couldn’t have the event,” said the manager of the Eagle Lodge, “but he showed me the law and told us what could happen if we did. I talked to our trustees, they talked to our lawyers, and our lawyers said not to risk it, so we canceled.”Drug war critics are outraged by the incident, the first apparent use of the RAVE Act by the federal government. “This confirms all our fears,” said Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance. “This isn’t about drug parties or raves, it’s about having a club to hold over people’s heads, whether it’s hemp festivals, circuit parties, dances, whatever. The RAVE Act is being used to suppress political speech. This is exactly what Sen. Biden said would not happen, and now it’s happening.”—Leif Utnehttp://www.utne.com/webwatch/2003_68/news/10599-1.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 30, 2003 at 20:36:50 PT ekim I liked that too! He did a great job! [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by ekim on May 30, 2003 at 20:32:14 PT Jacob cracked me up on C-Span he was asked about his cover of his book. Its all white with a roled joint on the cover.He said like the Beatles White album. He said he tried to get the publisher to tape a real joint on each cover. He has written for Nat'l Review also. I ordered it today [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on May 30, 2003 at 16:29:46 PT Hooray for Jacob Sullum! I saw Jacob Sullum on C-Span's Washington Journal on Tuesday talking about his book and answering some very heated calls in a very level-headed and pragmatic way. I was very impressed - and now this! Go Jacob! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by afterburner on May 30, 2003 at 15:01:26 PT: And Now... CNN pundit attacks the NY Times with the dreaded "L" word: liberal.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, when the lies are so obvious that the critical mass no longer believes them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by WolfgangWylde on May 30, 2003 at 12:44:08 PT That's our government for you... ..."We care so much about our youth, that we want to make drug-taking as dangerous as possible". [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Virgil on May 30, 2003 at 12:14:07 PT A lot of words from the NYT It is almost like they forgot their sensorship rules of anything sensible in the WOD. Of course it is not by their staff member but someone selling a sensible point of view.http://www.reason.com/sayingyes/ leads to this paragraph-"Saying Yes is a powerful refutation of the pharmacological prejudices underlying the war on drugs. Jacob Sullum highlights the injustice of punishing people for their politically incorrect choice of intoxicants." [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on May 30, 2003 at 11:55:27 PT Holy Cow! Is that really Jacob Sullum, libertarian drug war critic, being printed in the prohibitionist NY Times? Maybe we ARE winning after all! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment