Hey what’s the point of having a blog if you can’t use it to win friends and influence public policy? I came across a very nicely constructed interface for contacting the US Legislature about your (presumed) indignation concerning the so-called “RAVE Act” currently before the House & Senate. This bill sucks a fat schlong, I don’t mind telling you, and any effort that can aid in its defeat is a worthy effort in my books. So take a look, and if you’re simultaneously stupified and enraged enough to take action, then make use of the following link:
FYI, here’s the contents of the letter I composed to Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald:
Hello, this letter concerns S. 2633, the Reducing American’s Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act. I became aware of this bill, currently before the legislature, via a civil liberties activism website located at http://www.drugpolicy.org/action/, which I mention so as to identify myself with the larger voting bloc that opposes this bill. I am in agreement with the text of their suggested letter, and I would like to add the following to its arguments:
First, the language of the bill is dangerously broad. I can only assume that the bill is proposed in good faith and with the best of intentions, but I have read the text several times, and I cannot disconfirm my suspicion that the amendments proposed under “Sec. 3. Offenses” would allow for and perhaps even encourage a variety of interpretations leading to the prosecution of innocent parties. Certainly, the Congress wants to ensure that the language of the bill is flexible enough to account for any unforseen conditions or circumstances that may arise, but my fear is that the bill may imply financial accountability for the actions of employees upon business owners, or vice-versa. Certainly, there must already be legislation on the books that speaks to the penalties and consequences faced by individuals or organizations involved with the trafficking of controlled substances. It is to be expected that this legislation needs to be updated and amended from time to time, but I find it entirely unacceptable that these amendments should specifically allow for the potential implication of innocent parties in these affairs.
Second, and continuing with my previous concern, I am opposed to the correlation drawn between profits/receipts and penalties in this bill. I feel that it is naive to assume that any litigation based on this bill will focus entirely on individual accountability, but instead will be directed towards the nearest neighbor with the deepest pockets. Of course, this is speculative, and will depend on the application and enforcement of the bill, but if this correlation and the bill’s broad language help contribute to an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among business owners and operators, then I must strongly oppose it.
Finally, I would like to register my agreement with the authors of the website cited above with regards to the bill’s findings concerning the “deeply embedded” nature of drug trafficking in “rave culture.” This statement is made without any basis in fact or statistical support, and can only be interpreted as another attempt to target and intimidate owners and operators of legitimate businesses that may be associated with “rave culture.” By any accounts, “rave culture” was founded on and continues to be based on forms of expression (music, dance, socio-political discourse) that are protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution, and any legislation that would interfere with this expression must make a significantly more convincing argument than the one presented in S. 2633. Until such an argument can be made, based on factual evidence and a more complete investigation of the situation, I would urge the legislature to devote their attention towards further investigation of any association between drug trafficking and “rave culture” and call for a renewed focus on harm prevention and education concerning the use and dangers of controlled substances. I realize that this will not be the most popular or dramatic position to take on the subject, but I feel that it a much more ethically responsible one (than the one represented by S. 2633), and will yield significantly more favorable results in the long term.
Thank you for your time and attention; I will continue to watch the progress of S. 2633 with great interest!
hey, can we use your letter and sign it in our name too? (bc i’m stupid you see.)
Fine with me, feel free to cut and paste and paste and paste… :)
We have reorganized our website which has caused the following errors on your site:
http://www.antinomian.com/archives/2002_08.html
when you click on “RAVE Act”,
the link to your page http://www.drugpolicy.org/action/RaveBill.html
gives the error: Not found.
http://www.ardpark.org/archives/breakingnews0717.htm
when you click on “http://www.drugpolicy.org/conference/awards.html”,
the link to your page http://www.drugpolicy.org/conference/awards.html
gives the error: Not found.
New link: http://www.nomoredrugwar.org/music/rave_act.htm
We thank you in advance for updating your link and apogize for the inconvenience.