anti rave bill ..... 2002

[kuba]

From audiogalaxy.com......

Attempted Government Rave Crackdown Continues

In yet another attempt to crackdown on raves, the House of Representatives is now considering a resolution called the, "Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize, and Undermine Production (CLEAN-UP) of Methamphetamines Act of 2002."

Sponsored by Rep. Doug Ose of California, who has been an active opponent of raves and methamphetamines as part of the House's Task Force for a Drug Free America, the resolution states: "Whoever knowingly promotes any rave, dance, music, or other entertainment event, that takes place under circumstances where the promoter knows or reasonably ought to know that a controlled substance will be used or distributed in violation of Federal law or the law of the place were the event is held, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than nine years, or both."

In short, if a promoter knows, or "reasonably ought to know" that drugs may be used or sold at an event, he or she could face up to nine years in prison.

The Electronic Music Defense and Education Fund opposes this resolution, saying that, if loosely interpreted, it could be applied to, "any well-attended entertainment event whether it be a rave, a concert, a major league sports game, or even a high school dance." Though the title of the act implies that it deals with methamphetamines only, the resolution never mentions any specific drug, meaning the possibility would exist for this act to affect countless events other than raves.

The EMDEF also fears the resolution could cause promoters to stop allowing drug prevention organizations and harm reduction groups, such as DanceSafe, a non-profit organization that sets up at raves to test ecstasy drugs for contamination and distribute information on such topics as heat stroke, to set up at their events in fear of admitting to prior-knowledge of drug use.

As of now, this legislation is pending. However, it has been introduced to a number of committees and subcommittees in the House and already has 42 co-sponsors.

The rave crackdown is continuing in California as well. A resolution has been introduced in California Assembly that states: "Any local permit granting authority shall notify the local law enforcement agency when it is considering whether or not to grant a permit for a rave party." The resolution would also require the promoter to present evidence that he or she is "sufficiently knowledgeable about illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia."

The resolution defines a "rave party" as any dance event that may be attended by 1,000 people or more.

The EMDEF also opposes this resolution, saying the wording is just too vague. How, they ask, does this resolution define "evidence," "sufficient knowledge," or even, "drug paraphernalia?" The EMDEF says, "The subjective wording of this bill and the fact that there is no specified formal procedure for the issuance of permits creates a potential for discrimination," against promoters of electronic music and dance events.

This legislation is pending as well; However as the trend towards laws that effectively shut down raves continues in our government, it will not be surprising to see both resolutions pass. What does this mean for the future of raves and electronic music in America? Says the EMDEF: "This is effecting the ability of our industry's top talent to sign deals with major record labels, to tour through large venues, and generally, to remain competitive in the music business."

 

[kyfe]

"The resolution defines a "rave party" as any dance event that may be attended by 1,000 people or more. "

Does that mean every rock concert is a rave? I like how the law is interpreted for big business....

what a joke, what about a parade? is that a rave....

Silly I say!

Kyfe

 

[HappyJR]

*nod*

yeah, Now that big buisness has shown defenite interest in using the "rave" style to sell their products, government intervention just isn't going to happen.

The ever increasing, already rediculous prices for venues and DJs is 10 times more of a threat then the idea that the governmnet might crack down.

 

[xtollo]

Originally posted by HappyJR
The ever increasing, already rediculous prices for venues and DJs is 10 times more of a threat then the idea that the governmnet might crack down.

I wouldn't go that far. Inflated prices vs. Parties being completely outlawed? And you're saying 10 times more of a threat? Doubtful.

Just pushing it into the clubs, thats all I see.

Jon

 

[Wunderbar]

Thanks to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such a bill would not be constitutional in Canada.

It does not address a pressing and substntial objective in society worthy of a Charter infringement, and the harm from the rights violated far outweigh the minimal gains in banning raves.

 

[matty]

Doesn't the US constitution say something like Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to peaceably assemble? Even if this law is passed it doesn't mean that it will stand up in court. As long as someone who gets charged has the $$$ to fight the case through the various appellate courts I'd guess that the law would eventually be declared unconstitutional.

 

[Klubmasta Will]

wunderbar - are you a law student? you have only applied a portion of the "oakes" charter test.

your premises are debatable by the way. (i agree with you, of course, but the argument would be more complicated than that.)

the u.s. bill of rights has all the same protections as our charter.

i'm sure EMDEF has the ability to successfully quash this bill on constitutional grounds, as long as someone pays their legal bill. (it would be extremely expensive and there would be no guarantee that the government would not simply re-word the bill and then re-introduce it.)