Compiled by Anonymous, Drug Policy Alliance. March 2003.
What are the RAVE Act and the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act?
The RAVE Act (H.R. 718) and the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act (S. 226) are federal bills that would make it easier for the federal government to punish business owners for the drug offenses of their customers – even if they take steps to stop such offenses. The bills would also make it easier to punish homeowners for the actions of their guests. If enacted, they would not only harm innocent people they would undermine public safety measures and stifle free speech. The bills are exactly the same piece of legislation, except for the names. The RAVE Act is the House version of the legislation. The Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act is the Senate Version. Similar provisions are also in S. 22, a domestic security bill introduced by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD).
What Would this Proposed Legislation Do?
Essentially, the legislation would expand a federal law that is already being abused (the so-called “crack house law”) in four ways. It expands the “crack house law” to apply to more places and individuals (without curbing current abuses of the law). It fundamentally changes the very purpose of the “crack house law” from targeting owners of property used primarily for drug offenses to making property owners liable for isolated incidents – even if they’re not involved in them. It makes it a crime - punishable by up to 20 years in prison - to temporarily use a place (hotel room, home, etc) to use drugs. The owner of the home or business could also be imprisoned or fined up to $500,000 – even if they were not involved in drugs. It would enact new civil penalties that would allow the federal government to punish business owners at a standard of proof too low to protect innocent business owners.
What is Wrong with this Legislation?
- It unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the actions 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 proposed law, the standard of proof is too low to adequately protect innocent property owners.
- It 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 and face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold concerts or other events on their property and police make drug arrests. If the legislation becomes law, property owners may become too afraid to rent or lease their property to groups holding all-night dance parties, rock or Hip-Hop concerts, protest rallies or any other event rightly or wrongly perceived as attracting drug users (essentially any event that attracts a young crowd.) Federal prosecutors are already punishing business owners that allow certain non-profit groups on their property or allow their customers to dance with glow sticks or other legal items. This legislation will make it easier for the federal government to coerce business owners with threats of $250,000 fines into not playing certain kinds of music, allowing certain types of guests onto their property, and not allowing certain kind of clothes or other legal items.
- It 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 - driving raves and other musical events further underground and away from public health and safety regulations. It would also discourage business owners from enacting important safety measures to protect their customers. Federal prosecutors are already insinuating that selling bottled water, having paramedics on call, and offering air-conditioned rooms is proof that owners and promoters are encouraging drug use at their events. This legislation may make business owners too afraid to implement such commonsense public safety measures, and the safety of our nation’s youth will suffer.
Is This Legislation Just About Ecstasy and Raves?
No. While proponents are trying to target Ecstasy and raves, the law 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 proposed law 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.
How Will This Legislation 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 this law will likely be no exception. While the bill is ostensibly aimed at raves and other all-night dance events, the proposed 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 are arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned at dramatically higher rates than Whites for drug offenses. African American 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.
Don’t We Need to Protect Teenagers from the Dangers of Ecstasy?
Yes. But, unfortunately this legislation 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, federal prosecutors may make business owners too afraid to implement the kind of safety measures that will save lives. This legislation 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.
Don’t We Need This Legislation to Stop 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.
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.
Isn’t This Legislation 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.
- Businesses will not know what is legal or illegal until a court or jury decides. In recent cases, prosecutors have used legal activities like selling bottled water, opening their premises to certain non-profit advocacy groups, having paramedics on call at large events, and allowing customers to dance with glow sticks as “proof” that business owners were encouraging drug use. Because the “crack house law” and this new legislation are not well defined, it will be impossible for business owners to know what legal activities they can and can not allow on their property and there will be no way to know what will reduce their criminal or civil liability. One must essentially stand trial on federal drug charges in order to be instructed as to whether or not one’s behavior expresses complicity in the drug activity of others.
- Business owners need not be involved in a drug offense in any way to be prosecuted under these amendments. 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. The RAVE Act and the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act will make it easier for the federal government to punish business owners for the offenses of their customers.
- The legislation is 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 legislation 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.
Doesn’t This Legislation Just Make a Few Minor Changes to Existing Law?
While this legislation 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 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.
Isn’t It True That Innocent Business Owners Don’t Have to Worry Because the Legislation Only Affects Those That “Knowingly” Use Their Place of Business “For the Purpose of” Drug Offenses?
No. Proponents of the legislation continue to make the false claim that innocent business owners don’t have to worry, but they should know better. Innocent business owners need to worry because current law already allows innocent business owners to be prosecuted. The RAVE Act and the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act will make it easier to punish business owners. 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). Thus, business owners don’t have to be involved in drug offenses to be punished. Indeed, they can be actively trying to stop drug offenses on their property and still be punished. The RAVE Act and the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act will allow prosecutors to apply the law to more innocent business owners, while lowering the standard of proof it takes to punish them and put them out of business.
How Would This Legislation Impact Home Owners?
It is so broadly written that homeowners could potentially face 20-year sentences if their guests use drugs at their party or barbecue. As currently written, the proposed law would make it a federal crime to temporarily use a place for the purpose of using any illegal drug. Thus, 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 at a hotel room or on a cruise ship, the owner of the property could also be potentially liable.
How Would this Legislation Impact Medical Marijuana States?
The legislation would potentially punish property owners that rent to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers – even in the eight states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. While those using or providing marijuana are already prosecutable under federal law, this legislation would make any property owner that leased or rented property to such people potentially liable for their offenses – even in states where it legal.
What Happened to the RAVE Act Last Year
Two of the original RAVE Act Senate co-sponsors dropped their support for the bill and removed themselves as co-sponsors (including the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee). The House Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on the House version of the RAVE Act but decided not to vote on it. While the Senate version passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate leadership never brought it up for a full Senate vote.
|
