As many of you already know, on April 10th, 2003 the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (also known as the “RAVE Act”) passed into law as an attachment to the AMBER Alert bill. The AMBER Alert bill creates a system of responding to child abductions and has absolutely nothing to do with drug policy. As evident in this case, a common ploy in Congress has been to attach less popular bills to more popular ones so that both can pass. The RAVE Act provisions were added to the AMBER Alert bill at the very last minute by Senator Biden (D-DE), the original sponsor of RAVE Act. The RAVE Act had not passed even a single committee in the House or Senate this year. It is unfortunate that one senator's pet issue has made a mockery of the democratic process. Organizations such as Drug Policy Alliance will be working with legislators who opposed this unjust provision including senators Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy as well as representatives Conyers and Scott to seek its immediate and unconditional repeal. In the meantime, however, it is up to all of us to oversee and scrutinize its enforcement. Attorney General John Ashcroft will have to make decisions about the RAVE Act's enforcement priority among the many public safety issues the Department of Justice handles. We want him to know that he is not free to shut down our dance clubs, our festivals and our freedoms. For more information on the R.A.V.E. Act and how your voice can be heard we urge you to visit www.EMDEF.org, www.DrugPolicyAlliance.org and www.DanceSafe.org.

WHAT DOES THE R.A.V.E. ACT DO?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE R.A.V.E. ACT?

IS THE R.A.V.E. ACT JUST ABOUT ECSTASY AND RAVES?

HOW WILL THE R.A.V.E. ACT AFFECT PEOPLE OF COLOR?

DON'T WE NEED TO PROTECT TEENAGERS FROM THE DANGERS OF ECSTASY?

DON'T WE NEED THIS BILL TO GO AFTER THE DRUG DEALERS?

AREN'T RAVES JUST HAVENS FOR DRUG USE?

DOESN'T THE R.A.V.E ACT JUST MAKE MINOR CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW?

HOW WOULD THE R.A.V.E. ACT IMPACT MEDICAL MARIJUANA STATES?

ISN'T THIS BILL NARROWLY TAILORED?
 

 
WHAT DOES THE R.A.V.E. ACT DO?

The R.A.V.E. Act expands the federal "crack house statute" to make it easier for the federal government to fine or imprison businessmen up to 20 years in federal prison if they fail to prevent customers or tenants from selling or using drugs on their premises or at their events. Alternative explanation: The R.A.V.E. Act increases the civil and criminal liability that business owners and event promoters could face if customers commit drug offenses on their property.

Back to top.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE R.A.V.E. ACT?

1. The R.A.V.E. Act unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers.

It is too broadly written and could subject innocent business owners to enormous fines or prison sentences, especially restaurant and nightclub owners, concert promoters, landlords, and real estate managers. Business owners could be prosecuted even if they were not involved in drugs in any way - and even if they took steps to stop drug use on their property. Because prosecutors could charge owners civilly under the R.A.V.E. Act, the standard of proof is too low to adequately protect innocent property owners. The government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons, yet it's seeking to punish business owners that can't stop their customers from using drugs. 

2. The R.A.V.E. Act will stifle musical expression and is a threat to free speech and the right to dance. 

It is clearly an assault on raves and electronic music. Property owners, promoters, and event coordinators could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves or other events on their property. If the bill becomes law, property owners may be too afraid to rent or lease their property to groups holding hemp festivals, all-night dance parties, rock or Hip-Hop concerts, or any other event rightly or wrongly perceived as attracting drug users (essentially any event that attracts a young crowd.) The R.A.V.E. Act is an attempt by aging baby boomers in Congress to squash a youth culture they don't understand.

3. The R.A.V.E. Act will harm the very people it's meant to help. 

If enacted, licensed and law-abiding business owners may stop hosting raves and other musical events, out of fear of massive fines and prison sentences. Thus, the R.A.V.E. Act will drive raves and other musical events further underground and away from public health and safety regulations. It would also discourage business owners from enacting important measures to protect their customers. By insinuating that selling bottled water and offering "cool off rooms is proof that owners and promoters know drug use is occurring at their events, this bill may make business owners afraid to implement such harm-reduction measures, and the safety of our nation's youth will suffer.

Back to top.

IS THE R.A.V.E. ACT JUST ABOUT ECSTASY AND RAVES?

No. While proponents of the R.A.V.E. Act are trying to target Ecstasy and Raves, the R.A.V.E. Act would allow federal prosecutors to target other events, such as Hip Hop concerts, country music events, and hemp festivals. It could apply to hotel and motel owners, cruise ship operators, stadium owners, landlords, real estate managers, and event promoters. The bill is so broadly written that individuals could potentially face 20-year sentences for using drugs at home. Anyone who used drugs in their own home or threw an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which one or more of their guests used drugs could potentially face a $500,000 fine and up to twenty years in federal prison. If the offense occurred in a hotel room or on a cruise ship, the owner of the property could also be potentially liable.

Back to top.

HOW WILL THE R.A.V.E. ACT AFFECT PEOPLE OF COLOR?

Given the history of drug law enforcement over the last 30 years, we should expect any new drug law to have a disparate impact on communities of color - and the R.A.V.E. Act will likely be no exception. While the bill is ostensibly aimed at raves and other all-night dance events, the law could impact all music genres. Venues that host Hip-Hop performances may be unfairly targeted. While evidence shows that Whites sell and use drugs at the same or higher rates than people of color, African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans arc arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned at dramatically higher rates than Whites for drug offenses. Black men are admitted to state prison for drug offenses at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of White men. While African Americans constitute only 13% of drug users, they represent 35% of arrests for drug possession, 55% of convictions and 74% of prison sentences.

Back to top.

DON'T WE NEED TO PROTECT TEENAGERS FROM THE DANDGERS OF ECSTASY?

Yes. But, unfortunately this bill will hurt the very people it's meant to protect. It will drive raves and other musical events further underground and away from emergency care and hospitals. Moreover, by insinuating that selling bottled water, offering air-conditioned "cool off" rooms and having ambulances present is proof that owners and promoters know that drug use is occurring at their events, the bill may make business owners too afraid to implement the kind of safety measures that will save lives. The R.A.V.E. Act will put the lives of teenagers - and adults for that matter - into greater jeopardy. Such health measures as freely available water and air-conditioned rooms are common sense at any large gathering of people. Moreover, the majority of people that attend raves are adults, not teenagers.

Back to top.

DON'T WE NEED THIS BILL TO GO AFTER DRUG DEALERS?

No. Existing law already makes drug-selling a crime. The federal government already has the ability under existing law to imprison nightclub owners or their employees that sell or distribute drugs. Prosecutors can also use (and are already using) the existing "crack house statute" to target nightclub owners and rave promoters.

Back to top.

AREN'T RAVES JUST HAVENS FOR DRUG USE?

Some people use drugs at raves, just like some people use drugs at rock concerts, sporting events, and state fairs. Singling out one type of event and one type of music is unfair and un-American. Just like we wouldn't ban all rock concerts just because some people use drugs at them, we shouldn't ban raves just because some people use drugs at them. At issue in this debate isn't whether or not people should use drugs, it's whether or not business owners should be punished for the crimes of their customers and whether or not an entire music genre and culture should be suppressed because of the offenses of a few.

Back to top.

DOESN'T THE R.A.V.E ACT JUST MAKE MINOR CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW?

While the R.A.V.E. Act makes only a few changes to the existing "crack house statute", the changes are very significant. It adds new civil provisions that allow people to be punished with a lower standard of proof and without the right to a jury trial. It expands the applicability of existing law to apply to more places and more people. The bill's addition of the word "temporarily" undermines the very purpose of the "crack house statute" which was targeting property that was being used primarily for drug offenses, not making property owners liable for isolated actions that occur on their property, whether they are there or not.

Back to top.

HOW WOULD THE R.A.V.E. ACT IMPACT MEDICAL MARIJUANA STATES?

The bill would potentially punish property owners that rent to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers - even in the eight states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. While those using or providing marijuana are already prosecutable under federal law, this bill would make the property owner that leased or rented property to such people potentially liable for their offenses - even in states where it is legal.

Back to top.

ISN'T THIS BILL NARROWLY TAILORED?

No. While it's true that prosecutors will have to build a case against suspected violators, its protections are not strong enough to fully protect innocent owners.

1. Businesses will not know what is legal or illegal until a court or jury decides. 

While supporters of R.A.V.E. Act claim that innocent business owners don't need to worry because the bill's intention is to punish business owners that "knowingly" use their place for the "purpose of engaging in or allowing drugs offenses, neither "knowingly" nor "for the purpose of are defined in the Act. In recent cases under existing law, prosecutors have used legal activities like selling bottled water, opening their premises to certain non-profit advocacy groups, and allowing customers to dance with glow sticks as "proof that business owners were encouraging drug use.

2. Business owners need not be involved in a drug offense in any way to be prosecuted under the R.A.V.E. Act.

In recent prosecutions under the existing crack house law, prosecutors have argued that "knowingly" should apply to the business owner (as in knowingly opening your place of business to the public) and "for the purpose of should apply to the customers (as in using a club or hotel room for the purpose of using or selling drugs). In a recent case in New Orleans, a nightclub owner was prosecuted despite the fact that the owner had a history of working with the police to stop drug offenses on his property, including holding suspected drug offenders until the police arrived.

3. The R.A.V.E. Act is also written in such a way that leaves enormous potential for prosecutorial abuse. 

It is a significant broadening of existing law and offers no protections to prevent overzealous prosecutors from filing criminal charges or civil suits against the owner of a nightclub in which a customer overdosed or was caught selling drugs. While the business owner may ultimately be acquitted, they could be bankrupted with legal expenses. Disturbingly, the bill would enact provisions allowing the federal government to bring civil suits against alleged violators, instead of filing criminal charges. This is a remarkable reduction of the standard of proof that the government will have to meet to punish people, and is clearly designed to compensate for the fact that federal prosecutors are having a difficult time making their cases.

Back to top.