T
The420Guy
Guest
A bill that would force rave promoters to certify that they are
familiar with illegal drugs and how to prevent their use at the
popular electronic music events has passed the California Assembly
on a 79-0 vote. Now it is headed for action in the state Senate.
The bill authored by Rep. Nancy Havice (D-Bellflower) would also
impose unprecedented regulatory restrictions on raves in the
state. It is formally supported by Attorney General Bill Lockyer,
the California Narcotics Officers Association (which is identified
as a "sponsor" in a February legislative analysis), the California
State Sheriffs' Association, the California Peace Officers'
Association and Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.
AB 141, the innocuously named "act to add Section 53087.6 to the
Government Code, relating to law enforcement," includes the
following provisions, as listed in the Legislative Analyst's
office's review of the legislation:
* "Establishes requirements for issuing a local permit for a "rave
party," defined as an electronic music dance event that may be
attended by 500 or more persons.
* "Requires a local permit granting authority to notify the local
law enforcement agency when it is considering a permit for a rave
party.
* "Requires a promoter applying for a permit for a rave party to:
* Submit the application for the permit at least 30 days in
advance;
* Notify local law enforcement of its application;
* Include in the permit application a list of all of the rave
applications the promoter has submitted in the past;
* Present evidence showing the promoter is knowledgeable about
illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia and can recognize the
presence of drugs at a rave;
* Acknowledge in writing that the promoter will not permit,
condone, or ignore violations of state and local laws relating to
drugs and drug paraphernalia at the rave."
"It is my sincere belief that our children are facing an ever-
changing and often dangerous world. In authoring this bill, I
know I am doing my part to help protect all children by limiting
our children's access to drugs," said Assemblywoman Havice in the
bill's analysis section.
Civil and cognitive liberties groups and rave fans don't deny that
drug use, especially of MDMA (ecstasy), exists at raves, but say
that the bill infringes on civil rights of promoters and event-
goers alike. The Southern California ACLU, for example, initiated
an Internet-based campaign to block what it called an "anti-rave,
anti-free speech bill."
"[The bill] picks out one type of speech event, a rave, and makes
it harder to hold one than to hold another similar event, such as
a wedding party, a folk music festival, or a religious concert,"
the group wrote at its campaign web site. "It is not the
government's job to judge what kind of music people should listen
to, what kind of clothes and accessories they should wear, or what
kind of dance party they can attend," contended the Southern
California ACLU.
Assemblywoman Havice's spokesman Carlos Benilla told the
University of Southern California newspaper the Daily Bruin "we're
not targeting a specific kind of music; we're targeting a specific
kind of activity that is taking place."
One Trojan, USC musicology grad student and electronic music fan
Griffin Woodworth, told the Daily Bruin he feared the bill would
have a negative impact on the music. He acknowledged drug use at
raves, but said that was no reason to legislate against a certain
style of music. "Drugs do not make the music, and music does not
cause the drugs," Woodworth said.
And if Havick hopes that her bill will "protect all children," it
may have the opposite effect. "Harm reduction" groups, such as
DanceSafe (DanceSafe), which provides pill testing
and other services at raves, would not be allowed to do their work
at permitted events, the bill's supporters said.
The bill is awaiting committee assignment in the Senate. The
legislative session ends August 31. Given the overwhelming
support for the bill in the Assembly, the best bet for opponents
may be to let the bill die a quiet death by inaction in committee.
(To view the text, history, and various analyses of the bill, go
to Welcome to the California State Assembly | California State Assembly and type in
"AB1941.")
familiar with illegal drugs and how to prevent their use at the
popular electronic music events has passed the California Assembly
on a 79-0 vote. Now it is headed for action in the state Senate.
The bill authored by Rep. Nancy Havice (D-Bellflower) would also
impose unprecedented regulatory restrictions on raves in the
state. It is formally supported by Attorney General Bill Lockyer,
the California Narcotics Officers Association (which is identified
as a "sponsor" in a February legislative analysis), the California
State Sheriffs' Association, the California Peace Officers'
Association and Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.
AB 141, the innocuously named "act to add Section 53087.6 to the
Government Code, relating to law enforcement," includes the
following provisions, as listed in the Legislative Analyst's
office's review of the legislation:
* "Establishes requirements for issuing a local permit for a "rave
party," defined as an electronic music dance event that may be
attended by 500 or more persons.
* "Requires a local permit granting authority to notify the local
law enforcement agency when it is considering a permit for a rave
party.
* "Requires a promoter applying for a permit for a rave party to:
* Submit the application for the permit at least 30 days in
advance;
* Notify local law enforcement of its application;
* Include in the permit application a list of all of the rave
applications the promoter has submitted in the past;
* Present evidence showing the promoter is knowledgeable about
illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia and can recognize the
presence of drugs at a rave;
* Acknowledge in writing that the promoter will not permit,
condone, or ignore violations of state and local laws relating to
drugs and drug paraphernalia at the rave."
"It is my sincere belief that our children are facing an ever-
changing and often dangerous world. In authoring this bill, I
know I am doing my part to help protect all children by limiting
our children's access to drugs," said Assemblywoman Havice in the
bill's analysis section.
Civil and cognitive liberties groups and rave fans don't deny that
drug use, especially of MDMA (ecstasy), exists at raves, but say
that the bill infringes on civil rights of promoters and event-
goers alike. The Southern California ACLU, for example, initiated
an Internet-based campaign to block what it called an "anti-rave,
anti-free speech bill."
"[The bill] picks out one type of speech event, a rave, and makes
it harder to hold one than to hold another similar event, such as
a wedding party, a folk music festival, or a religious concert,"
the group wrote at its campaign web site. "It is not the
government's job to judge what kind of music people should listen
to, what kind of clothes and accessories they should wear, or what
kind of dance party they can attend," contended the Southern
California ACLU.
Assemblywoman Havice's spokesman Carlos Benilla told the
University of Southern California newspaper the Daily Bruin "we're
not targeting a specific kind of music; we're targeting a specific
kind of activity that is taking place."
One Trojan, USC musicology grad student and electronic music fan
Griffin Woodworth, told the Daily Bruin he feared the bill would
have a negative impact on the music. He acknowledged drug use at
raves, but said that was no reason to legislate against a certain
style of music. "Drugs do not make the music, and music does not
cause the drugs," Woodworth said.
And if Havick hopes that her bill will "protect all children," it
may have the opposite effect. "Harm reduction" groups, such as
DanceSafe (DanceSafe), which provides pill testing
and other services at raves, would not be allowed to do their work
at permitted events, the bill's supporters said.
The bill is awaiting committee assignment in the Senate. The
legislative session ends August 31. Given the overwhelming
support for the bill in the Assembly, the best bet for opponents
may be to let the bill die a quiet death by inaction in committee.
(To view the text, history, and various analyses of the bill, go
to Welcome to the California State Assembly | California State Assembly and type in
"AB1941.")
