Rave Act snuck through Congress

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well this has passed even though it defies all common sense. I don't think it'll just be used against Raves either.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/

― David Beckhouse (David Beckhouse), Friday, 30 May 2003 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

this is a basically a crackhouse law, no?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Yup.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:38 (twenty-two years ago)

welcome to the Weimar republic.

― Mike Taylor (mjt), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:43 (twenty-two years ago)

finally!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Except under the crackhouse law you can lose a building that you open intending to use to sell drugs. Now even if the owner or promoter is making a good faith effort to prevent it it can be invoked. It also opens the door for all kinds of civil cases (someone slipped you a roofie? sue the club!).

― David Beckhouse (David Beckhouse), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:47 (twenty-two years ago)

someone served you a drink and you get a dui? sue the club! what else is new?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, I agree it's a stupid law I'm just not sure there's any kind of dangerous precedent being set here

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Biden might be making a run at 2004 (though really it's too late for that). still, there's you motivation (other than, you know, actually thinking drugs might be bad).

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 01:53 (twenty-two years ago)

James, James, James,
you underestimate the tendency of those in power to overextend
and abuse that power.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Friday, 30 May 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

how so? 'those in power' - don't be so quaint

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 19:22 (twenty-two years ago)

James: it's less an up-front legal issue than it is an enforcement issue -- in the usual parlance a "tools to do the job" issue. Essentially it hugely drops the burden on law enforcement in terms of justifying their interference with public events. Which -- you're right -- isn't a particularly dragonian turnaround from the status quo, which offered them a decent amount of leeway to begin with. The more significant part is that it exposes organizers, club owners, etc. to much more legal liability, which -- obviously -- has the effect of stopping people from deciding to organize events in the first place. Which means less events for those who like to attend them. Which is, you know, sad.

In other words, I agree with you that it's not any sudden stomp-down of the boot -- law enforcement in plenty of states has already been using existing "crackhouse" laws to control public events in exactly this same way. But federalizing it and making it legislatively official -- as opposed to a sort of tentative extension of unrelated laws -- definitely has a chilling effect on organizers, which is (I hope) all anyone's complaining about. (Well, that and the traditional problem with "public gathering space" type laws, which is that they're pretty much impossible to enforce without using them as a tool to attack particular segments of the population.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 30 May 2003 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Hahaha "dragonian." That's when something's draconian but is also 12 feet tall and has a tail.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 30 May 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

eBay - Plant Bar NYC - Complete Soundsystem

and that was for simply DANCING

on a personal tip, link

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 30 May 2003 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

see I don't think the way this law is gonna be enforced isn't gonna match the intentions of this law, unlike say the way certain patriot act or rico laws have been used in way they were not conceived for. I think this law is gonna be enforced in PRECISELY the way they intend ie. the negative ways heretofor mentioned (I mean it's NAMED the 'rave act').

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 30 May 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly, James: the question people are asking is if "crackhouse" laws got targeted at "raves" then what will "rave" laws get targeted at? (If only it were as simple as "crackhouses.")

You have to remember that law enforcement doesn't start by reviewing the law and then proceed to investigating violations of. In instances like this, they start by figuring out who and what they want to deal with, and then see what steps they can legally take to do so. Almost every "tools to do the job" measure like this one is a direct result of law enforcement agencies saying "we're just dying to crack down on such-and-such, but current law doesn't allow us to." And when something else pops up that they're dying to crack down on, they'll work with whatever they've got to make it feasible -- over the past few years, it's been "we're dying to crack down on drug use and sales at raves, and well technically they qualify under existing crackhouse laws. . . ."

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 30 May 2003 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I still don't see how this is going to change a damn thing in my neck of the woods. But we'll see.

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 30 May 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

(NB: by "these sorts of situations" I mean not regular policing but special units like those for gangs and in this case drugs -- they don't just respond to crimes, but rather have the job of developing plans to actively disrupt the environments that let the crimes take place. And note that I'm not picking on these sorts of groups, either, cause in plenty of situations I think that sort of preventative policing is really worthwhile.)

It'd be silly to anticipate some giant change in the workings of everything based on this, sure. But I wouldn't be surprised to notice a slight increase -- you know, 10-20% -- in how often you hear that a club got shut down for drug violations, that a party got raided and the organizers are really pessimistic about bothering to do more, or that some minding-their-own-business people got slapped with big fines in the process. I.e., not world-ending things and maybe not even significant things (if you're not one of the people involved), but just a general drain on the whole thing. (Which, to be fair, will be at least somewhat effective in impeding the public drug use the bill's meant to be impeding.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 30 May 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Just wondering, are there any big raves (say, 20.000+) in major entertainment venues (arenas, exhibition halls or whatever the proper name is for those places where they hold tradeshows, etc) in the US, or is it all happening in the clubs and more or less improvised locations (say, empty warehouses or aircraft hangars)?

― Siegbran (eofor), Friday, 30 May 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

This anti-rave Legislation is just part of a much larger series of bills being passed...

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 3 June 2003 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

"Rave Act snuck through Congress"

Heh, what'd they do, turn the bass down really low, hide their glo sticks in their pockets and pull their jester hats down over their eybrows. Then just sort of shuffle on through whistling innocently and trying to look inconspicuous?

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 3 June 2003 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Naaaah. Can't look conspicuous in an 11 foot high Dr Seuss Hat while one of you bandmates keeps stopping every ten feet to hug a passing senator.
"I love you, maaaan. I don't even know you and just love you."

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 3 June 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Curse you for that image, Mei! ;-)

― kate, Tuesday, 3 June 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Way-hey. Now you U.S. ravers can be as cool, underground and dangerous as your Brit counterparts. Or you'll get a boom in huge impersonal superclubs. Who knows.

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Tuesday, 3 June 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought for a minute that this thread was about how a couple of kids in day-glo body paint were escorted behind the House's back on a school tour of the nation's Capitol. or whatever.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 3 June 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, I was just about to make the same joke Mei just made.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 3 June 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

it begins!

― your null fame (yournullfame), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 10:53 (twenty-two years ago)

#@$$@#

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:14 (twenty-two years ago)

― sarah mccormick (unsarah), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

note - this fundraiser had nothing to do with raves and i don't think any Americans were going to be particularly Vulnerable to Ecstacy there.

― your null fame (yournullfame), Wednesday, 11 June 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

didn't take them very long.

― jl, Wednesday, 11 June 2003 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

one month passes...

plur!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:21 (twenty-two years ago)

could you write "PLUR" on a bag of dog shit, set it on fire on my front porch and ring my doorbell please?

― your null fame (yournullfame), Friday, 18 July 2003 07:38 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.