more raving luncay
AlterNet.org spotlights another scary anti-rave bill--this one in the House and ostensibly intended to combat meth use, it proposes criminal penalties for promoters of musical events if someone promores an event where drug use of any kind is a reasonable possibility. Here's a key clause from H.R. 3782:
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 where the event is held, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 9 years, or both. [emphasis mine]
(via InstaPundit via The Hamster)
Dude. Back when I attended rock concerts (which is to say, before ticket prices became $50 a pop), it was sure-fire to see at least a couple of people fire up a spliff. Under this rational, nearly any concert promoter could be busted. (Protestations by supporters of the bill that it's just to give law enforcement a tool to support their discretion just raise equal protection concerns.) It occurs to me that if the Grateful Dead were still touring, this law could be used to bust every single one of their concerts; I'm not hip to the current scene, but don't groups like Phish have the same sort of deal at their shows? I've only been to one Phish concert (and my pal Sparky and I really went to see Sheryl Crow open the show), but that was the general vibe I got.
I'll also point out, as AlterNet does, that H.R. has one of those catchy acronyms--in this case, CLEAN-UP (Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize and Undermine Production of Methamphetamines). The use of catchy and misleading legislative titles is anothersad trend of politics today; I miss the old days when bills were called stuff like the "Hawley-Smoot Tarrif Act."
By the way, would someone please tell me what the deal is with the glow sticks?