Illicit Speech Anti-Proliferation Act

Joe Biden's Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, which holds venue owners responsible for drug use on their property, seems to have claimed its first victim: a fund-raising event for two drug policy reform groups. The Drug Reform Coordination Network reports that the Drug Enforcement Administration used the law to intimidate the owners of the Eagle Lodge in Billings, Montana, into canceling a concert that would have benefited the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy.

On May 30, the day the event was set to take place, a Billings-based DEA agent showed up at the Eagle Lodge, which had booked the concert. Waving a copy of the RAVE Act [the law's original name] in one hand, the agent warned that the lodge could face a fine of $250,000 if someone smoked a joint during the benefit, according to Eagle Lodge manager Kelly, who asked that her last name not be used.

"He freaked me out," Kelly told DRCNet. "He didn't tell us we couldn't have the event, but he showed me the law and told us what could happen if we did. I talked to our trustees, they talked to our lawyers, and our lawyers said not to risk it, so we canceled," she said. "I felt bad. I knew the guys in the bands."…

DEA Denver regional office spokesman Bill Wyman confirmed to DRCNet that an agent had visited the Eagle Lodge to warn of possible RAVE Act violations and their consequences…

Clearly, the chilling effect of this law is not limited to unconventional music. Just as opponents of the measure predicted, the government is using it to silence critics of the war on drugs.

[Thanks to Ted Sampsell-Jones for the link, via Don Watkins.]

Comments

[Eric]

Art. IV, ? 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution (the "single subject clause") restricts all Bills to a single subject. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of the clause was to prevent "logrolling" of bills by "passing unpopular measures on the backs of popular ones." (sound familiar?) I presume that several other state constitutions do the same thing.

Imagine someone proposing an amendment like that to the U.S. Constitution and all of the pork that would have to be cut out if it passed.

Wishful thinking.

[thoreau]

I should get a job working for the IRS, and then bring some weed to work. They'd have to arrest me, but after shutting down the IRS in accordance with the RAVE Act there'd be no money to imprison me.... 😉

[Plutarck]

"I should get a job working for the IRS, and then bring some weed to work. They'd have to arrest me, but after shutting down the IRS in accordance with the RAVE Act there'd be no money to imprison me.... ;)"

Better not. You see, for your actions you would be declared a terrorist, and then you would be shipped off to some military holding prison somewhere, and then there would be a few speaches about how such a terrorist act as trying to Shut Down America cannot be allowed to work, and anyone who disagrees is un-American.

You see, they have carved themselves a wonderful opportunity for doing anything they please, and it just gets "better" by the day.

In short, this is what happens when governments are no longer constrained by possibility, but by desire. That is to say "If they can, eventually they will."

And they can - and now they are.

[thoreau]

Plutarck-

What if somebody lit a joint at the IRS, got sent to the gulag, and then lit a joint at the gulag? Would that suffice? 😉

OK, maybe government buildings don't fall under the RAVE Act. But concerts are fair game. I'm sick and tired of Creed being overplayed on the radio. Can I bring some weed to a Creed concert and get them muzzled finally? 😉

[Anonymous]

Lets see what happens on Aug 17, 2003. That is the first day of the Seattle Hempfest, the largest annual political rally in the US. Over 200,000 people are expected at the 2 day event. Last year, there was over 180,000 in attendance with only 4 arrests. Organizers have always worked with local and state law enforcement to provide safety. The organizers have always made it known that if you came to buy, sell, or just smoke, its not the place to do so. Just come with your voice and a message concerning drug policy in the US.

Do you think the feds will take down Hempfest with the RAVE Act? Possibly, but not without a fight. The taxes generated by the hempfest is now a staple in the the city budget for Seattle. Not to mention having 200,000 people converging in downtown Seattle spending their hard earned money on local hotels, resturants, and other city attractions.

Hopefully hempfest has the support and clout to challenge the constitutionality of this act if the feds bring it.

[alkali]

Sean Kirby humorously speculates:

As a measure of civil disobedience, some brave libertarian might volunteer to go and get arrested with illegal drugs inside either the Republican, or Democratic National Conventions in 2004. Let's see them shut those events down.

More practically, it seems that if the DEA is going around threatening in advance to prosecute a group for meeting on the theory that the meeting might give rise to a RAVE Act violation, the group could go to court under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act (28 USC 2201) and get a federal court to rule on the consitutionality of the RAVE Act.

[Jim N]

I was at Free Republic today and came across a thread on this. Someone pointed out that the feds' activities here fall under that USA PATRIOT acts definition of domestic terrorism as an attempt to "influence government policy by intimidation or coercion."

Heh?

[david f]

THANK YOU, ERIC!!!

the answer to my question resided here in my own state... i guess illinois can luck into things... check out joe bob briggs's article in this month's reason about illinois, our wonderful mayor, and gambling. it's shocking to find that gambling is allowed here (to paraphrase M. Renault)

cheers,
drf

[junyo]

"It has been speculated, but not yet confirmed, that the probation officer, described in unprintable terms by several local sources, was responsible for siccing the DEA on the benefit. I find it truly disturbing that it seems the wheels of this whole thing were set in motion not by some grand Ashcroftian scheme, but by a single probation officer who decided to be a prick. Little too much power in one minor level bureaucrat's hands IMHO.

[Gene Berkman]

I noticed that one-time libertarian Dana Rohrabacher voted in favor of the bill that includes the RAVE Act. In the interest of full disclosure, the first time I ever smoked marijuana was at a YAF Party at Dana Rohrabacher's apartment.
Virginia Postrel has suggested that Biden's support for the RAVE act is the reason libertarians are involved in the Republican Party.Yet overwhelming GOP support for this bill - with the exception of Ron Paul - does not make a good case for Republican libertarianism.

[thoreau]

Gene Berkman-

I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth about smoking weed at a GOP Congressman's apartment, but it wouldn't surprise me 😉

I think the point about Dem support for the RAVE Act is that we're often _told_ the Dems are better on civil liberties and privacy while the GOP is better on economic liberty and guns. But when the Dems start going gung-ho for the RAVE Act, it undermines the notion that they are libertarian on civil liberties, removing any reason to vote Dem instead of GOP. So the Dems are "just as bad" on civil liberties, and much worse on guns and taxes.

[David 2]

Are we supposed to be surprised by this? The government has been engaging in blatant thuggery for quite some time! They just happen to have a perminant "get out of jail free" card called sovereign immunity to back them up.

[joe]

Anyone's who's surprised that this was first used to shut down political dissent please report to the showers. Remember the number of your hook, so you can find your clothes later.

[fyodor]

I agree the law is bad bad bad. And if anyone has a link that shows who voted for it, I'd be very grateful.

But I also wonder, when the lawyers are consulted, do they ever say anything besides don't take the chance?

[Sean Kirby]

As a measure of civil disobedience, some brave libertarian might volinteer to go and get arrested with illegal drugs inside either the Republican, or Democratic National Conventions in 2004. Let's see them shut those events down.

[fyodor]

Sean Kirby,

Heh, as if.

Can you say, "selective enforcement"?

[Anonymous]

hey Fyodor!

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00151:@@@L&summ2=m&

is the closest thing i can find. S.226 (the new illicit drugs bit) seems to be piggybacked on S.151, which has a lot to do with amber etc.

in this bill, there are other juicy items:
"Subtitle B: Truth in Domain Names - Prohibits knowingly using a misleading domain name with the intent to: (1) deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet; or (2) deceive a minor into viewing on the Internet material that is harmful to minors."
i guess whitehouse.com is now out...

*BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE*

"(Sec. 607) Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003 or SAFE ID Act - Provides criminal penalties for: (1) counterfeiting or altering authentication features (halogens, symbols, codes) for the purpose of creating or using false personal identifications; and (2) trafficking in such features without authorization of the issuing authority.

(Sec. 608) Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to make it unlawful to lease, rent, or use (currently, only to open and maintain) a place for manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance, or to manage or control a place for such use. Provides civil penalties and equitable relief for violations.

Directs the Sentencing Commission to review and consider increasing the penalties for offenses involving gamma hydroxybutyric acid (a "club drug" often used to facilitate sexual assault).

Authorizes appropriations to the Drug Enforcement Administration for: (1) the hiring of a special agent in each State to serve as a Demand Reduction Coordinator; and (2) educating youth, parents, and other interested adults about club drugs.

(Sec. 609) Revises Federal criminal law prohibiting terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems to define "vehicle" for such purposes as any carriage or other contrivance used, or capable of being used, for transportation on land, water, or through the air"

phew. good to see that the gov't is on the ball... (i guess pragmatic solutions that lead to a rule of men and not rule of law are okay, as long as we're not bothered by the rules)

cheers,
drf

[thoreau]

Hey, at least the DEA gave this club a warning. If they really wanted to send a message they'd give no warning, and just wait for a RAVE Act violation to occur. A big fine for one guy smoking a joint at a club would have attracted mroe attention than a warning to prevent an event from ever happening.

So, if at my university I reserve a conference room to assemble fellow students opposed to the RAVE Act, and somebody shows up with a joint, will the Feds shut down the entire university?

Finally, I nominate George Soros for the honor of lighting up at the GOP Convention. Hey, maybe Bush's speeches make more sense if you listen while baked!

[dude]

You know the first place I ever procured the Evil Weed? High school. I'm sure I'm not alone.

I look forward to all high schools and universities being closed coast to coast thanks to this law. For The Children!

(Incidentally, that suggesting that someone spark a fatty at the Dem and Rep conventions is absolutely brilliant. Howabout Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court too? But, yeah, selective enforcement. . .)

[fyodor]

drf,

Thanks, but while there's a bunch of info on that page, including a list of the overall bill's sponsors (without R & D idenfifiers, unfortunately), I didn't see anywhere where the actual vote in either house was shown, although I didn't bother to check each and every link....

Your post did remind me that this bill was cleverly stuffed inside a bill increasing penalties for child absuse, which of course muddies the waters anyway. Gad, this situation is so frigged up, it's hard to even know who to blame! (Besides Biden, the bastard, but I don't live in Maryland....)

[Anonymous]

Thoreau:

They don't want to send a message that everyone hears. If they did everyone would realize how foolish the law is. They only want the pro-legalization crowd to hear about it. The gov hopes this will strike fear in the hearts of other club owners. Sadly, I suspect it will work.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Yeah, maybe it's good that they gave a warning, but OTOH, this way they got to shut down the event WITHOUT HAVING TO LOOK BAD! That's why I think it's a cryan shame that they didn't go ahead with it and challenge the Feds to enforce the law. At the very least the Feds would have looked like asses (not that that ever stops them entirely, but I think it maybe at least makes them feel bad for a while). At best, it could have gotten overturned in court. Buf of course the lawyers always say don't take the chance.

dude,

Yeah, heh, sorry to rain on that parade of fantasies, but it could go on forever and it probably won't ever happen. Beyond selective enforcement for its own sake, the idea of KNOWING that your event will likely have drug use is ultimately so subjective as to make selective enforcement part of the very point of this law. But I do hope the first organization to get busted has at least some semblance of respectability, enough to incur some negative PR fallout at the least and a court fight at best. We can only wait and see and hope. Heh, RAVE act Roulette!!

[another dude]

Just use RAVE on public institututions and not private ones and Reason will only get half-upset.

[david f]

hey Fyodor!

98-0 with Lieberman and kerry not voting. the date was april 10...
the house version, HR 1104 passed 410-14 (clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=89)

fyi: ron paul and bernie sanders voted against. gephardt and hank hyde didn't vote (among others)

this piggybacking drives me crazy. as far as i know, ours is the only legislature that does that. am i mistaken in this?

this month's reason notes in the Citings section, "how a bad bill becomes a law" by Sara Rimensnyder: "the RAVE Act... passed both the House and Senate in April without ever having gone through committee and without floor debate". The article continues to note that: Biden's attempt to pass something like this last session was blocked by the drug policy alliance (also per the article, paraphrased).

cheers,
drf

[another dude re-iterates]

I suppose I was trying to say that if RAVE were only applied to high schools that are public, as would have been many of those 'dude' mentioned, that many Reasonites would achieve their ends though perhaps not by Reason-ed means.

[david f]

hey another dude,

still lost on what you're trying to say...

(oh, fyodor: biden is from Del, not Md., but he is a bastard. that's a direct quote from him -- well it isn't but i like how he was busted in 1988 for that).

cheers!
drf

[James Merritt]

You can find the roll-call vote (along with state and party affiliation) for S151 (the "PROTECT the kids" bill, into which Biden's originally defeated RAVE provisions were injected) at this url:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00035

The vote was 84-0. Among the "Yeas," my own Senators, Boxer and Feinstein.

I haven't yet found the record of the vote for the companion house measure.

[fyodor]

drf,

Thanks for the vote info! Gad, that rots!!! I wonder if the few nays were based on the RAVE portion of the bill? Well, here's hoping some pointy headed judge overturns the People's will, ha-ha!!

[Cassandra]

Seems pretty obivous that cities like Santa Cruz and San Francisco have an opportunity to press this issue. If a major hempfest were to be held on SF property, a benefit for the reform network etc, would Mr. Meyer make such a call on Mr. Brown?

When we were in Straight Inc. we were programmed with the ideology behind this war. One of the basic planks of the 'faith' posits that simply talking or even thinking about drugs is dangerous. It suggest that the 'evil disease' is tracking our every move, such behavior just makes us more vulnerable as a society. A natural extention of certain religious beliefs regarding naming The Dark Lord.

There is no doubt in my mind that the folks at the top still feel this way. They consider this an area where free speech has to be sacrificed for the good of the community. For them, such a benefit is roughly equivilant to the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre model.

Any event that is generating tax rev for cities is off limits- to protect working relationships that have not already crumbled. So the Grateful Dead tour will not be pre-empted, despite the fact that everyone knows what is happening there. The same holds true for much of the jam band scene. But if they go after one, they will go after them all...

Perhaps then, the first big test is near; The Bonneroo Festival will gather 80,000 hemp friendly types in Tennessee one week from now. If the same model were used, then the DEA would inform the Landowner and Promoters on the day off or the day before the event. The Bonneroo producers would haveto face a difficult choice, and turnign away 80K people would be a most unsettling task.

Why not go after Willie Nelson's Fourth of July Picnic? The Dead are playing, Willie is no friend of the Feds, and he had the audactiy to express support for those pinko-nazi democrats that fled the Texas Legislature last month.

Burning Man is a pretty big target, and that could shut down a huge free-flow of ideas, as well as the Rainbow Gathering- a simmering pot that has been near boiling over for years.

Certain venues, especially those associated with specific liberal 60's images (Fillmore, Warfield, Beacon) and hundreds more....Is this the first instance of the convergence of zero-tolerance, Pre-emption and the Drug War?

Perhaps the most unnerving thing is that from a strictly objective POV, there is nothing illegal about a DEA agent informing a property owner of the risks of a new law.

[cady]

Straight inc. I was there too found this searching for info you have my sympathy we did not have free speech that is for sure

[Burny "Burn-one"]

Upon reading through some passages in the Bible, I found something very ironic relating to marijuana prohibition. I can't remember off the top of my head where it's at, but I clearly remember the message. Over 2000 years ago God informed one of the profits that some green plants (according to God all GREEN HERBS are a gift to man and are to be consumed with thanksgiving) would some day be prohibited (yes it actually talks about prohibition) because of deliberate misinformation and intentional lack of knowledge given to the mass public by political leaders. These prophesized prohibitors were predicted to be well educated about the benefits and lack of any severity that these herbs accommodate. So how do you gain control of a mass. You misinform them and brainwash them into turning against something they always thought was ok. Man, that sounds alot like the U.S., does it not? Now, half of our ignorant country believes that marijuana kills because some government agency displayed a commercial showing a stoned boy driving an automobile, being unrealisticly oblivious to his surroundings, smash into a little girl on her bike, killing her. And it's illegal now, and guess what; The government has total legitimate control over it. But, it doesn't end there. It goes on to say that "God's green herbs are rightous and Man's plants are not to be used. It's funny how many of the legal drugs issued by the government help kill people everyday. I bet more people have died by accidentally slitting their wrist with a butterknife while cream-cheesing there bagel. Marijuana needs to be legal! We need to have a choice at least between God's (Almighty-approved) herbs and Man's (non-approved and often potentially harmful) drugs. It was surprising to learn that consuming(not necessarily smoking)weed is really encouraged by God as long as you are thankful and humble about it. It's funny how they never mentioned that in church once throughout my 20 years going. Oh, and may I mention how easy it is to O.D. on a $3.00 bottle of pills a 12 year old can buy, but it would take hundreds of pounds of marijuana smoked in a matter of a few minutes to make a person O.D. IMPOSSIBLE!