179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

RE: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?

4 messages · 3 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
2002-04-09 18:11Christopher Jones [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
└─ 2002-04-09 18:54Robert Vann RE: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
2002-04-09 18:15Jason Stickel Re: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
2002-04-09 20:18Jason Stickel RE: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2002-04-09 18:11Christopher JonesHi has anyone heard any news on the 2 cases that went to the supreme court about rave prom
From:
Christopher Jones
To:
Date:
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
permalink · <Pine.SOL.4.10.10204091109410.17598-100000@haystack.lclark.edu>
Hi has anyone heard any news on the 2 cases that went to the supreme court about rave promoters being charged under crack house legislation in the USA? Cheers, Chris bitsandpiecesrecords.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-04-09 18:54Robert Vannhttp://www.emdef.org ought to have all the info you're looking for. Last I heard, though,
From:
Robert Vann
To:
Idm
Date:
Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:54:13 -0500
Subject:
RE: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
Reply to:
[idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
permalink · <NMEJIBKGJEHJFGMNNNPPKEOLEAAA.listaroo@licious.net>
http://www.emdef.org ought to have all the info you're looking for. Last I heard, though, the N'Awlins/Freebass case had been settled and the courts had determined that it wasn't fair of the authorities to consider things like chill rooms, readily available water, and glow sticks to be drug paraphernalia. This is in stark contrast to the addendum to the new Methamphetamines regulatory act waiting to be reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee which I'll go ahead and quote here: SEC. 305. LIABILITY OF PROMOTERS OF DRUG-ORIENTED ENTERTAINMENT. (a) IN GENERAL.-The Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting after section 416 (21 U.S.C. 856) the following new section: SEC. 416A. PROMOTERS OF DRUG ORIENTED ENTERTAINMENT. "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 9 years, or both.". (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sections at the beginning of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 416 the following new item: "Sec. 416A. Promoters of drug oriented entertainment.". EM:DEF ought to have some information on this piece of legislation as well within their Laws/Cases section. I urge those people who view this as an attack on constitutional freedoms to write local, state, and federal representatives as well as the media so that we can make it a public flop. Also, there's a need for promoters to standardize security, medical, and legal procedures to eliminate a lot of the problems. peace::hoomank (rob vann | ft.worth, tx) PS: There were several overdoses over the course of the first era of Freebass parties, and I doubt severely that every single one of them involved a 'candykid'. Drug abuse is a problem which spans every genre, every form of drug (illegal or not), and most subcultures in America are no exception. Perhaps if more time was spent saying "we are fucking up and *we* need to fix it" instead of "look at *that* group fucking up...let's get 'em!" the situation wouldn't be quite so precarious. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-04-09 18:15Jason StickelChris - If it is the case I think you are referring to it is in New Orleans and the promot
From:
Jason Stickel
To:
,
Date:
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:15:42 -0400
Subject:
Re: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
permalink · <F3847PsLQicf7hONNsp0000e35f@hotmail.com>
Chris - If it is the case I think you are referring to it is in New Orleans and the promoters had some difficulty with getting shut down (supposedly illegally) and they are fighting it. I had heard rumors that some f'd up candy raver od'd though, but I don't know exactly. J~
quoted 16 lines From: Christopher Jones <chjones@lclark.edu>>From: Christopher Jones <chjones@lclark.edu> >To: idm@hyperreal.org >Subject: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case? >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:11:46 -0700 (PDT) > >Hi has anyone heard any news on the 2 cases that went to the supreme court >about rave promoters being charged under crack house legislation in the >USA? Cheers, Chris > >bitsandpiecesrecords.com > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2002-04-09 20:18Jason StickelRobert - Point well-taken. I used the term "candy kid" in reference to an article I origin
From:
Jason Stickel
To:
,
Date:
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:18:35 -0400
Subject:
RE: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case?
permalink · <F38lrjbudzxxfYXFrwi0000e628@hotmail.com>
Robert - Point well-taken. I used the term "candy kid" in reference to an article I originally read regarding the incident and the person who suffered with his 15 year-old life. And yes, in my eyes that was the fault of the promoters. There is such a thing as a responsible party-goer and a responsible promoter - I happen to be one of them. Safety first, insurance first, education first. Before you are so quick to fractionalize and stereotype based on one word which I used to half-heartedly describe someone (everybody knows what a candy kid is), make certain you understand others' points of view. It is "we" and pointing fingers is self-destructive - so quit pointing yours and look at the context in which I used that term. I think you'll find perhaps you were a bit harsh in your condemnations. Respect, J~
quoted 62 lines From: "Robert Vann" <listaroo@licious.net>>From: "Robert Vann" <listaroo@licious.net> >Reply-To: <listaroo@licious.net> >To: "Idm" <idm@hyperreal.org> >Subject: RE: [idm] USA "rave" promoters Supreme Court Case? >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:54:13 -0500 > >http://www.emdef.org ought to have all the info you're looking for. Last I >heard, though, the N'Awlins/Freebass case had been settled and the courts >had determined that it wasn't fair of the authorities to consider things >like chill rooms, readily available water, and glow sticks to be drug >paraphernalia. > >This is in stark contrast to the addendum to the new Methamphetamines >regulatory act waiting to be reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee >which >I'll go ahead and quote here: > >SEC. 305. LIABILITY OF PROMOTERS OF DRUG-ORIENTED ENTERTAINMENT. > >(a) IN GENERAL.-The Controlled Substances Act is amended by inserting after >section 416 (21 U.S.C. 856) the following new section: > >SEC. 416A. PROMOTERS OF DRUG ORIENTED ENTERTAINMENT. >"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 9 years, or both.". > >(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sections at the beginning of the >Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 is amended by >inserting after the item relating to section 416 the following new item: >"Sec. 416A. Promoters of drug oriented entertainment.". > > >EM:DEF ought to have some information on this piece of legislation as well >within their Laws/Cases section. I urge those people who view this as an >attack on constitutional freedoms to write local, state, and federal >representatives as well as the media so that we can make it a public flop. > >Also, there's a need for promoters to standardize security, medical, and >legal procedures to eliminate a lot of the problems. > > >peace::hoomank (rob vann | ft.worth, tx) > > >PS: There were several overdoses over the course of the first era of >Freebass parties, and I doubt severely that every single one of them >involved a 'candykid'. Drug abuse is a problem which spans every genre, >every form of drug (illegal or not), and most subcultures in America are no >exception. Perhaps if more time was spent saying "we are fucking up and >*we* need to fix it" instead of "look at *that* group fucking up...let's >get >'em!" the situation wouldn't be quite so precarious. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org >
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org