How the RAVE act passed.

[Xodiac]

Hey, everyone. I was checking an old email address and found this email from the Drug Policy Alliance about trying to fight a bill that was "tacked on" to another government spending bill, which is aimed at stopping pro-medical marijuana messages from appearing in certain public places. They provide an explanation below, which describes a method politicians can use to fit unpopular legislation in to larger, popular bills. This sounds exactly like what happened with the Rave act, renamed the Extasy Awareness Act of 2003, and tacked on to the Amber Alert bill, even though it is not primarily intended for the protection of children like the other included legislation. Anyway, for those of you curious about just how it was done, here it is.

~Evan



The Alliance is preparing to go to battle against the government. In December we warned you about a provision that will censor marijuana reform efforts. Rep. Ernest Istook, an Oklahoma Republican, snuck language into a federal spending bill that will effectively ban private advertising on buses, subways, or trains in support of marijuana law reform - including campaign ads in support of medical marijuana ballot measures. Worse still, the same bill also spends $145 million in taxpayer money on anti-marijuana government propaganda. This federal spending bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives late last year, and the U.S. Senate will most likely vote on it next week.

If you haven't faxed your Senators yet, please do so today. While there is only a small chance that we can stop this bill from passing (the reason why drug war extremists snuck this censorship provision into it), we need to show Congress that voters are outraged. This will give the Alliance leverage to work on removing the censorship provisions from the spending bills when they are voted on again at the end of the year. We need to show that we have your support and the support of the American people.

In addition to this legislative strategy that can repeal the ban if it passes, the Drug Policy Alliance is preparing to sue the federal government to have the ban overturned in court. We will keep you updated as our plans develop - we will definitely need your help!

ACTIONS TO TAKE

1) Fax your Senators and tell them to protect free speech. You can fax them for free at

2) Forward this alert to your friends, family, and co-workers. We need thousands of Americans to fax Congress.

MORE INFORMATION

Every year Congress passes 13 federal spending bills providing money to various federal agencies. Sometimes the House passes a spending bill that is different from a bill the Senate passes. When that is the case, Congress appoints what is called a "conference committee" to reconcile differences between the two bills. This conference committee then sends a final version of the bill to both the House and Senate for one final up and down vote, with no chance for amendments. Members of the conference committee frequently add controversial things to the spending bill at the last minute, knowing that their colleagues won't vote against an entire spending bill just because one thing in it is controversial.

This year Congressional leadership decided to reconcile multiple spending bills within one conference committee, producing a single federal spending bill (known as an "omnibus" spending bill) to send to the House and Senate floor for a final vote. This tactic allowed them to slip in all sorts of controversial things they could not otherwise pass into law. They know that Members of Congress are unlikely to vote against such an omnibus funding bill just because they don't like some of its parts.

During conference, House and Senate leaders loaded up the omnibus bill (HR 2673) with dozens of controversial provisions. One such provision, added by Rep. Ernest Istook Jr. (R-OK), would prohibit any transit system that receives federal funds from running advertising for groups that want to decriminalize or legalize marijuana. If enacted, it would prevent groups like Change the Climate and the Drug Policy Alliance from buying ad space on buses, trains, and subways around the country. It would prevent drug policy reformers from getting our reform message directly to the American people.

At the same time, the omnibus bill gives the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) $145 million to run anti-marijuana ads next year. (This provision was already a part of one of the federal spending bills that Congress considered earlier this year and was not added by the conference committee. The amount of taxpayer money spent on government anti-marijuana ads would have been significantly higher had the Drug Policy Alliance and other groups not worked to cut the budget.). ONDCP has already spent taxpayer money on television commercials comparing drug users to terrorists and claiming that smoking marijuana will make you a pregnant rape victim, make you shoot your neighbor, or make you run over little kids with your car. This year's ads could be even more outrageous.

The omnibus spending bill was approved by the House last year and the Senate will likely vote on the bill sometime during the week of January 19. Because the bill cannot be amended to remove the controversial provisions, the only way to prevent them from becoming law is if a majority of the Senate votes against the entire omnibus bill. While this is very unlikely, it is possible.

The Drug Policy Alliance is urging voters to contact their Senators and tell them to vote against the omnibus spending bill (HR 2673) because it was put together in an undemocratic manner and contains provisions that suppress free speech.

[Xodiac]

The ridiculously titled "Patriot Act" is an example of one of the few times they actually strapped it on and did this directly.

Wow, you make it sound so lesbian!

[Leo]

Fortunately for us the RAVE Act has done little more than disrupt a NORML get together. The economy & passing of trends had loads more to do with the decline in massives than some half cocked addendum designed to beef up the Crack House Law.

Originally posted by Leo
Fortunately for us the RAVE Act has done little more than disrupt a NORML get together. The economy & passing of trends had loads more to do with the decline in massives than some half cocked addendum designed to beef up the Crack House Law.

There was even a directive from Ashcroft declaring the Montana NORML event to have been a misapplication of the RAVE Act provisions and declaration that such use of the Act would not be tolerated by his administration.

The RAVE Act was much more of a "feel good" act. Crack house laws in general would do the trick and are probably a bit more permissive to law enforcement - althought that is speculation.

[Xodiac]

Well, even if the Rave Act hasn't shut down too many events, it's harder to determine how many innocent promotors may have been scared out of throwing events or outright threatened by someone using this piece of legislation.