Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself
[June 9, 2003]
By S. M. Oliva
Last August, I wrote at length in opposition to the
“RAVE Act,” a smarmy piece of “anti-drug” legislation being peddled by
Sen. Joseph Biden, Delaware Democrat. At that time, the RAVE Act failed to
pass Congress. But this year, snuck in to an unrelated bill at the last
minute, Biden’s proposal passed without any debate or discussion. Since
the substance of the final version is substantially unaltered from Biden’s
proposal of last summer, I’ll briefly reiterate my remarks describing the
The Rave Act is designed to expand the federal
"crack-house" statute to cover certain kinds of electronic music
concerts, known as raves, on the dubious ground that these particular
concerts are prone to drug use among patrons. The bill would make it a
federal crime to "knowingly" operate or lease property "permanently or
temporarily...for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing,
distributing, or using a controlled substance."
That may sound innocent enough, but the purpose of the
bill is manifestly clear: Concert promoters will be held criminally and
civilly liable for any drug use that may occur on premises they are
operating. The RAVE Act has nothing to do with reducing drug use, and
everything to do with giving politically motivated prosecutors a tool to
go after innocent businessmen who have no ties to the drug trade.
Right off the bat, the RAVE Act creates a
non-objective law. What does that mean? It means that the language is so
vague as to render it impossible for anyone to know what specific
conduct will actually make them liable under the law. For example,
unlike the current crack-house law, the RAVE Act says an owner is liable
if his premises are "temporarily" used for drug purposes. This one word
actually negates the entire purpose of the crack-house law in the first
place! A crack-house is supposed to be a building or property whose
purpose is to facilitate drug use. The purpose of a concert is to, well,
entertain people with musical performances. That's not illegal. But
under the RAVE Act, if even one person is using drugs at a show, that
can technically create civil and criminal liability for the owner.
Needless to say, it didn’t take long for the first major
abuse of the RAVE Act to occur. The Drug Reform Coordination Network has
An agent of the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) used threats of RAVE Act prosecutions to intimidate
the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue into a canceling a combined
benefit for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws and Students for Sensible Drug Policy last
While the Billings event was advertised as a benefit
concert for two local groups interested in drug law reform -- not as a
drug-taking orgy -- it still attracted the attention of the DEA. 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 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
"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."
The RAVE Act has no valid law enforcement purpose. The
initiative to pass this legislation came after federal prosecutors in
Louisiana failed in their efforts to apply the existing crack-house
statute to the owner of a concert venue where some illegal drug activity
allegedly took place. Federal anti-drug officials apparently believe if
they can suppress any gathering where drug use may occur, they will
actually win the “war” on drugs. Years of empirical evidence documenting
the government’s failure apparently does little to convince them of their
error, to say nothing of the obvious violation of individual rights that
takes place as officials demand more and more power.
In the case outlined above, the government’s goal had
nothing to do with fighting drugs, and everything to do with censoring
views the government disagrees with. This is by no means an isolated
incident. Last year, White House drug policy chief John Walters actively
campaigned—using taxpayer funds—in Nevada to encourage the defeat of a
state referendum to partially decriminalize medical marijuana. Walter did
so despite a federal law banning such overt political activity under the
official color of office. Although the Marijuana Policy Project, a key
backer of the referendum, filed official complaints with federal and state
officials, no action has been taken against Walters, whose “anti-drug”
mission apparently grants him immunity to disobey the law at will.
Far from exercising their own oversight, some members of
Congress, led by Indiana Republican Rep. Mark Souder, want to legalize the
drug czar’s actions. Souder has proposed freeing up the drug czar to spend
whatever federal funds he wishes to campaign against any ballot initiative
or candidate which supports decriminalizing drugs. This would, in theory,
permit Walters to bankroll ads against members of Congress who support any
liberalization of the drug laws. That such a proposal would engender
anything other than immediate censure of Souder is a testament to just how
powerful a weapon fear has become in stifling rational debate—and
individual rights—in modern America.
It’s not just the drug issue where this is a problem. In
antitrust, my specialty, the Federal Trade Commission has been on a
rampage to suppress thoughts and viewpoints inconsistent with the personal
beliefs of Commission staff. The clearest manifestation of this trend in
three recent prosecutions of private membership associations, all of which
were forced by the FTC to sign consent orders renouncing portions of their
ethics codes. None of the three challenged ethics codes posed even a
slight threat to any person’s legal rights—indeed, one of the challenged
codes had never been enforced at all. Yet the FTC’s orders said the
associations could not maintain or express any ethical opinion
which the Commission considered improper. The mere acts of thought and
speech now constitute antitrust violations worthy of federal prosecution.
Is it any wonder the RAVE Act has already been abused to suppress similar
heresies against government doctrine?
Fear is the common denominator in all these incidents.
By raising the hint of an unpopular consequence—be it increased drug use
or “monopolization” of industry—government officials are able to expand
their control over society without having to rationally defend their
premises and ideas. No debate is necessary when people are convinced that
immediate harm will come to them unless the government acts without delay.
The result of such cognitive dissonance, of course, is to slowly erode
basic individual liberties in the name of statism. The question which
remains is, how far will the people allow this to go? At what point does
deference to regulators yield to the people’s assertion of rational
self-interest? Perhaps the incident in Billings will mark a turning point,
a moment at which thinking men and women will start to look at government
actions for what they are, rather than for what they are spun as by the
fear-peddlers. Perhaps we can even start a serious discussion in this
country over the larger abuses of power, such as antitrust, which have
been allowed to control our lives for almost a century.
The only other option is to stare down into the void of
despotism and hope the situation will correct itself. Of course, that’s
not a rational option, but when a people become dominated by fear, they
have nothing to look forward to except fear itself. Reason is ultimately
the only light which will cast away that fear.
up for CAC's Newsletter
Keep up with the latest news—type
in your e-mail address and click Go!
You ask the
tough questions and we answer them.
The Moral Basis of Capitalism
the only moral social system. Learn why.
The Moral and the Practical
practical for the same reasons that make it moral.
Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential
texts on capitalism.
Learn about the
News mentions, press releases and speakers.
Send us a comment or
ask a question—we want to hear from you!