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

← archive index

[idm] RAVE Act: Passed

1 message · 1 participant · spans 1 day · search this subject
2003-04-16 18:35[idm] RAVE Act: Passed
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2003-04-16 18:35LRMLaw@aol.comForwarded from Jon @ Viper Press--thought it might interest some of you. For more details,
From:
To:
Date:
Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:35:47 EDT
Subject:
[idm] RAVE Act: Passed
permalink · <2f.381a15c3.2bcefc83@aol.com>
Forwarded from Jon @ Viper Press--thought it might interest some of you. For more details, email me privately and I'll send you the full text including an article from Salon and some other stuff. lrm ******************************************** Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 04:34:08 -0500 From: Jon Resh <jon@viperpress.com> Subject: RAVE Act 2003: passed... Hey y'all: In the midst of all of the big war news in the last month, a bill was quietly passed by Congress last week, soon awaiting a signature by President Bush, that could affect something we all love dearly: Live music. A revision of the former RAVE Act -- i.e., the "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy" Act (no, I'm not making this up) -- has just passed through both houses, cunningly slipped onto an anti-child pornography bill that no politician would possibly vote against. The revised act, in purportedly broad wording and with wide parameters, targets Ecstacy and other drugs by penalizing the promoters and venue owners with big fines and possible jail time -- up to 20 years, it seems (see articles below) -- if one of their customers is found in possession or usage of illegal substances, no matter what the efforts were in preventing it at the show or event. Hence the federal government has mandated that a show organizer is somehow at fault if their customers are found using or in possession of drugs. With such a risk of heavy punishment and legal red tape, it would seem the aim is to disuade these events from happening at all by intimidating promoters from staging them. (And, if they are staged, the level of security must be tightened very highly.) At this point you may say: "Big deal? I hate techno and I don't do E." But the potential result of this bill is, conceivably, to put every DIY and independent music show and venue at risk, possibly limiting them. In other words: the government is now messing in OUR domain. Shows -- even clubs -- could be eliminated because of this threat (which, as I understand it, was part of the demise of at least one club in Chicago, where a localized, similar version of this law is already in place). Consider that, if this law were enacted 15 years ago, the Hardback Cafe (and countless other underground rock clubs) would have been shut down just about every night of the week. It would just take one wasted kid, cranked up on Ecstacy or (I think) anything else illicit, to throw the owner in jail. The Chicago law has been in place for the last year, and from my understanding it's taken a recognizable toll on folks who organize vanguard, street-level music events. And, what's worse, the promoters and scenes that have been hit hardest are those with the smallest amount of political resources (i.e., grassroots DIY electronica) and youngest members (i.e., 18 and under). While I haven't read the actual text of the bill itself, this whole issue seems so horribly regressive to me, like something from a '50s anti-marijuana crusade against "the evils of rock'n'roll." I realize, however, that this law may not actually be used very often -- its passage could just be a symbolic "weapon against drugs" to ensure votes for the lawmakers in D.C. -- and that there are surely loopholes to be found. Nonetheless, it's just appalling that, once again, our representatives at the highest level of government seem to feel that they have the moral license to constrain and impede culture for, from their standpoint, a more virtuous sense of order -- despite the objectionable ethics (and further erosion of civil liberties) of such a move. It's worth noting that this legislation did not come from the Ashcroft camp (as one would normally expect), but from veteran Democrat Joe Biden, whose name is often pitched around as a possible future presidential candidate (in part because of his youth, believe it or not). Below is some more information. To write a letter to the Justice Department against it, go here: http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=1581 Okay, sorry for the grandstanding; hopefully none of this will actually come to pass. Just thought y'all might want to know. Thanks, Jon jonresh@viperpress.com