What's wrong with AB1941?
AB1941 saddles the promoter of any event featuring electronic music and
dancing with civil liability for any harm to a participant as a result of
illicit drug use. What this means is that, in the unfortunate event that
someone were to be injured or die as a result of their own voluntary drug
use, the promoter could be sued by a person such as a parent for wrongful
death, negligence, etc. This makes the promoter legally responsible for
actions beyond his/her control.
This legislation will effectively ban harm reduction organizations such
as DanceSafe from all permitted events. It will be impossible for a
promoter to certify that no illegal drug use will take place at an event,
while simultaneously allowing entry to an organization that attempts to
educate patrons in making any drug use that does happen safer.
The passage of this bill would turn a patron who is under the influence
of drugs into a liability for the promoter. Paradoxically, it would be more
legally prudent for a promoter to evict a patron who is suspected of having
consumed illegal drugs, leaving them to drive home intoxicated, than to
allow them to remain in the presence of emergency services personnel and
others who might know how to care for them in the case of an adverse
event.
This law targets raves and events featuring electronic music in a
discriminatory fashion. Electronic dance music events should not be singled
out for a higher level of scrutiny and a more difficult permit process.
Other events, such as a rock concert or a swing dance, would not trigger
the same higher level of scrutiny and difficulty.
AB 1941 results in a vague, standardless process, a process which opens
the door to abuses. It requires that promoters of a rave party "present
evidence before the issuance of the permit showing that the promoter is
sufficiently knowledgeable about illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia..."
This requirement is so vague and broad that it gives no clear standard or
guidance to the government officials granting permits, thus opening the door
to arbitrary decisions and abuses.
The end result of this legislation will be to criminalize and dilute the
electronic dance community. Many promoters will stop holding events for
fear of litigation. The ones who remain will take their events underground.
These underground events will often lack many of the services that are
essential to keeping participants safe, such as running water, good
ventilation, harm reduction services, and emergency medical care.
What can I do about it?
-
Write your senator! If you live in California, write a letter to
your state senator. You can find out who your senator is by using this
form on the Senate's website. If you don't have time to mail your
letter, you can fax or email it. If a fax number isn't listed on your
senator's page, you can call his/her office to request it.
When writing, feel free to base your letter on some of the concerns
above, or any others that you may have. Personalized letters will have a
greater impact, and paper (US Mail or Fax) is better than email.
If you don't have time to write a personalized letter, the ACLU of
Southern California has put together an action alert from which
you can send an email to your senator with two clicks of your mouse.
However you choose to get in touch, be sure to include your full name and
address, so that your senator knows that you are a member of his/her
constituency. If you'd like, send a copy of your letter to us at
ab1941@dancesafe.org and we'll
put it up on the web for other people to see.
The important thing is to make your voice heard!
Tell your friends! We've prepared an
email that you can send to people who you think might be interested in
this issue. Just cut-and-paste into your mail program, and away you go!
Distribute flyers! Print this
flyer [PDF, 32k, double-sided], and pass it out at
parties and other events. Or make your own! Send us a copy, and
if we like it, we'll distribute it from this page.
Questions and Answers:
Q: How is that possible? Aren't people responsible for their own actions?
A: The bill requires the promoter of any "electronic music dance
event" which might be attended by more than 500 people to obtain a
permit 30 days before the event. In order to receive this permit, the
promoter must present evidence that s/he "is sufficiently knowledgeable
about illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia to recognize their presence at
the event." Furthermore, the promoter must, "acknowledge in writing that he
or she or his or her agents will not permit, condone, or ignore violations
of state and local laws regarding the presence, possession, sale, or use of
drugs and drug paraphernalia at any event covered by the permit."
These requirements would result in the promoter taking responsibility for
the prevention of drug use at his/her party. If the promoter then failed to
prevent the use of drugs, and someone came to harm as a result of that, the
promoter would be liable for that harm.
Q: What impact does this bill have on Harm Reduction organizations like
DanceSafe?
A: Though the language of the bill doesn't specifically target Harm
Reduction efforts, its supporters have said that it would prevent HR groups
such as DanceSafe from doing their work at permitted events. It would be
extremely difficult for a promoter to convince the court that they had made
every effort to keep their event drug-free, while simultaneously allowing
entry to a group that educates patrons on safer drug use. Furthermore,
DanceSafe's onsite pill-testing
program depends on amnesty from law enforcement and the acceptance of
promoters. In a post-AB1941 world, this program would become a thing of the
past.
Q: Why can't promoters just keep drugs out of their events?
A: Drugs are small. It's difficult to search every patron for
even a tiny pipe
and a small quantity of marijuana without being extremely invasive, let
alone a 4mm x 8mm ecstasy pill, or a 3mm square of LSD blotter paper.
Even if every promoter could have a pack of trained drug-sniffing dogs at
the ready, they would be useless in identifying those who had taken their drugs
somewhere else, and then showed up at the event.
It is not illegal to be under the influence of drugs (it is only illegal to
posses them), and it's impossible to prove conclusively whether someone has
used drugs without extremely invasive measures such as a urine or blood
test. Therefore, calling the police on a patron suspected of illicit
drug use is not a viable option. Promoters will be left with no choice
but to protect themselves by evicting partygoers who they suspect of having
used drugs, often leaving those people to drive home while
under the influence.
Further Information:
|