DEA Uses RAVE Act to Shut Down Fundraiser

[phishhead]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16134

DEA Uses RAVE Act to Shut Down Fundraiser

By Drug Policy Alliance

June 10, 2003

Only two months after the RAVE Act was passed by Congress it has been used by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to intimidate the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue into canceling a combined benefit for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). One of the biggest reasons activists waged a national campaign to stop the RAVE Act was the fear that it would be used to shut down political events like this.

On the day the fundraiser was set to take place a Billings-based DEA agent presented the venue owners with a copy of the RAVE Act warning them that they could face a fine of $250,000 if illicit drugs were found in the premises. The bands – most of which regularly played at the venue – were also approached and warned that their participation in the event could result in a fine.

Rather than risk the possibility of enormous fines, the venue decided to cancel the event. This blatant intimidation by the DEA was obviously designed to shut down the marijuana reform fundraiser. Unless the American people speak out against this attack on free speech, the DEA will be emboldened to use the law against other events they do not like, such as all-night dance parties, hip hop concerts, hemp festivals, and circuit parties.

Sponsored by Senator Biden (D-DE), the RAVE Act (also known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act) was first introduced last year. It proved so controversial then that two of its original co-sponsors withdrew their support because they feared it would send innocent business owners to jail. Business owners collected over 20,000 signatures in opposition to the bill. Protests against it were held around the country and tens of thousands of voters urged their elected official to oppose it. Controversy over the bill stalled it last year, but Senator Biden attached it to the popular "Amber Alert" bill without public debate or a vote of Congress earlier this year and sneaked it into law.

The RAVE Act expands federal law to make it easier to jail and imprison event organizers and property owners that fail to stop drug offenses from occurring on their property – even in cases when they take serious steps to reduce drug offenses. It applies to "any place", including bars and nightclubs, hotels, apartment buildings, and homes. Legal experts warned that the law was so broad that it could be used to shut down not only raves and electronic music events, but also Hip Hop, rock, and country music concerts, sporting events, gay and lesbian fundraisers, political protests, and any other event federal agents do not like.

On May 30th an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) told managers of the Eagle Lodge in Billings, Montana that the Lodge could be fined $250,000 if anyone smoked marijuana during a planned benefit to raise money for a campaign to change Montana's medical marijuana law. After consulting their attorneys, the Eagle Lodge canceled the event.

The Drug Policy Alliance, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and numerous other organizations have begun a campaign to pressure the DEA to stop using the RAVE Act to shut down political events.

[fansince62]

Cool!!!!!!

[Larry]

This is starting to sound like a much more ominous version of the administration that denied a permit for The Beach Boys to perform a free 4th of July concert on the Mall, because rock concerts encourage drug use and attract an undesirable crowd. (And invited Wayne Newton, instead.)

--------------

Our local council has been looging for some way to "crack down" on the "menace" of raves.

You'd get the impression that , if you went there, Hells Angels would be strolling the aisles with trays of heroin syringes.

I keep thinking, if drug use is realy that big at these events, then you can solve the problem by sending a few cops. In uniform. Anybody who's there for the "open, widespread drugs" will either put them away and wait for tomorrow, or go someplace else. (They can look for violations of the underage-alcohol laws, too.)

(I remember hearing that DC has a fairly simple proceedure for people who want to have a political event: When you apply for a permit, the Chief of Police will estimate how many cops it will take to keep order at your event, and however much those cops cost, that's how much your permit costs. If the KKK wants to have a rally on the same day that the NAACP is already having an event, then that's gonna take a lot of cops, and the permit's gonna be expensive. Maybe the same kind of thing can be done for events like the raves: If your organization has a reputation for attracting a lot of druggies, then your next permit's gonna be expensive. If you've got your own security, and they actually keep things legal (as opposed to looking the other way), then your permit's cheaper.)

[Dr. D]

this kind of stupidity is nothing new...

[Tarhog]

I don't have any incredibly strong feelings about this Larry, but I will tell you how Federal Law Enforcement works. They go after 'criminals' they can easily catch. Its the downside of a huge bureaucracy. My father is a semi-retired Gun Law expert and defense attorney. He worked for the Justice Dept for 30+ years, and for ATF for a time. Now he defends clients he used to help build cases against. What I've learned from many hours of discussion with him, and from hearing the stories of many of his clients is this:

1) You don't have to be guilty for the Federal Government to come after you.

2) You don't have to be guilty to have your life wrecked or to be found guilty by the judicial system as to a large degree, its law enforcement's word against yours if hard evidence in your defense is not in your hands.

3) If the government believes you are a criminal, they actually are fairly open to committing perjury, falsifying documents, and conducting harrassment campaigns against you, your family, and your business associates.

4) The government never ever ever admits it made a mistake in going after you, even if proven so. Only public high-powered opposition and embarassment will get their attention.

The vast majority of my father's clients are registered gun dealers and personal gun enthusiasts who collect guns. Keep in mind these are folks that willingly register their actions (in the vast majority of cases) with their local, state, and federal governments. Many just make a bonehead error on paperwork, or fail to understand the intricacies of gun law (such as purchasing or selling a part which could be used to modify a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one) and make honest mistakes. It doesn't matter. If the ATF or another federal agency gets wind of a problem, they are all over you. Many of my father's clients are dimed out by angry ex-wives/girlfriends/business competitors who are trying to settle a score. You would not believe some of the horror stories I have heard.

One of the reasons I don't fit neatly into the narrow pro-government Republican niche some believe I personally occupy is because I have a healthy distrust of government. I don't know that I find a bunch of pothead-supporting groups equally 'victimized', but I do believe strongly that the nature of the Federal Government is to get into parts of our lives where they don't belong. That is the part of Republicanism that I dearly love, the idea of limited government, and ultimately the right to bear arms to defend my personal freedoms if Big Brother ever does come knocking at my door.

And if anyone from DOJ or the ATF is here...

I'm just joking around. Seriously. But I'm pretty sure Kilmer is up to no good!

[Larry]

I guess one thing that gets to me about the "something must be done" crowd, is that, if these events were really the wild, drunken, orgies they're made out to be, then a few cops could arrest people just as fast as they can get 'em into the trucks.

Since they aren't already doing that, then I tend to suspect that these events aren't as bad as they're made out to be.

Maybe, someday, when people are collection my Words, I'd like my sigline to be: There's nothing in this world more dangerous than a politicion who thinks he needs to do something right now.

I think I'd support a Constitutiuonal Ammendment that any new law, in order to pass, should require a 75% vote of both houses, under the theory that anything that isn't illegal already can't be that important.

And, I have a real problem with the attitude that "people are doing Bad Things, but it's too much work to actually catch them, so let's punish somebody who's easier to get, instead."

[fansince62]

I have worked with LE as well....and Tar has some valid data points.......screw with the IRS sometime and see what happens!! I will say the vast majority I worked with were decent folks who wouldn't cross the line....and I'm not sure if Tar is speaking to the nature of LE or how the legal system is manipulated by all parties......

I'ld support less stringent drug laws with one caveat: change the law so that the person who sells drugs to my daughter I can kill with impunity........make that one teeny, weeny change and I'm in there!!!!

[chiefhogskin48]

Biden is a Democrat, remember? I don't see what this has to do with the administration, per se. Unless, of course, it's all that dastardly GWB's fault.

[Tarhog]

Recognizing that my post went way off on a tangent fan, my primary point was related to Federal Law Enforcement. I believe they subscribe to the 'We're from the Government, we're here to help' theory, which leads one to believe all actions taken in the name of the US Government are inherently good, just, and fair (hence ends justify all means - scrupulous or not). As for the boys in blue in general, God bless every one of them, couldn't have greater respect for the average law enforcement foot soldier!

[fansince62]

Tar....can't say as I haven't seen the same things you refer to........I'm not justifiing anything.....just suggesting that some of the abuses arise out of the fact that the legal system is being manipulated by everyone from all directions.......

[Larry]

I also think there's becoming a belief that, say, a cop who plants evidence and lies to convict somebody, is not only OK, but is a heroic thing to do, if the cop THINKS they guy's guilty.

I may have a rather unusual position, here. I've actually been in the position of having a cop swear false statements and try to plant evidence on me. (He didn't do it because he thought I was guilty. He did it because, after he arrested me, he realized he'd screwed up, and thought he could cover his screwup if he made me look guilty.)

And, yet, I firmly believe that that one jerk was the exception. You put me on a jury where a cop is saying "I saw this", and the defendant is saying "I didn't", and I'm going to believe the cop, simply because of his position.

( I guess, to put things another way: I don't believe for a second that Mark Furman planted evidence on OJ because he was black. OTOH, when those cops swore that, when they went to OJ's house "to notify his that his ex-wife was dead", that he "wasn't a suspect" (he was a suspect the instant they identified the body); and that, when nobody answered the intercom at the front gate at 3AM, the cops thought that there was a crime in progress inside OJs house, so when they climbed over the fence, they weren's searching the place without a warrant, they were responding to a possible crime in progress, then every single one of them was lying their doughnut-eating a** off.)

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Larry

if these events were really the wild, drunken, orgies they're made out to be, then a few cops could arrest people just as fast as they can get 'em into the trucks.

Agreed, Larry -- and I'd also like to put the focus of the law and law enforcement where it really matters: on the roads, where use of drugs and alcohol can easily cause deaths.

I'm always puzzled by how sparingly the DUI laws are enforced, and how people can get multiple DUI convictions without severe consequences. I'd be more relaxed about consumption of drugs and alcohol (I'd lower the drinking age back to 18, for example), and then be much more vigilant about enforcing the DUI laws and achieving convictions after arrests.

I don't have a personal stake in this either, as I don't use drugs and I drink only moderately. I just think we waste enormous resources going after the wrong problem.

[AJWatson3]

i wouldn't believe a cop just because he is a cop... but some of them do protect the public. and just the knowledge of their being is a detterent..

[AJWatson3]

example "1999's "Outstanding Lawman of the Year" by the Texas Narcotic Control Program":

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/15/tulia.suspects/index.html

i read about this case a few months ago... good to hear there is something being done about it....

what kind of sentence would an officer of the law receive for this kind of crime? considering that this case dates back to mid-99 and these people have been incarcerated for a while... hopefully at least the length of time that all of them served combined... sounds fair to me.