Posted on 06/23/2003 1:37:10 PM PDT by freepatriot32
NEW ORLEANS — Federal prosecutors have hailed a federal appeals court ruling as a victory in their efforts to curb illegal drug use at high energy, all night dance parties known as raves.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 20 that an agreement, worked out between the government and a rave club in New Orleans, can be enforced although it bans legal playthings like giant pacifiers, glow sticks and mentholated inhalers.
Prosecutors say the stuff is Ecstasy paraphernalia that promotes illegal drug use.
In 2001, federal prosecutors said the case was the first use of crackhouse laws against rave operators, who prosecutors said promote drug use by selling the paraphernalia.
Enforcing the ban was "in the public interest to save lives," U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said at a news conference on June 20. "I don't know how many kids are alive and walking around today because of this."
In August 2001, the agreement was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of rave participants and performers who used glowing masks and costumes in their performances.
The plaintiffs argued that the ban violated their constitutional rights.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous agreed with the ACLU and ruled that the restrictions violated the First Amendment rights of rave participants.
But the appeals court said the lower court ruling "violated the principles of finality" of federal criminal procedures and the "principles of judicial restraint and the separation of powers."
"If the government wants to combat illegal substance abuse they shouldn't do it through some type of plea agreement that has a criminal defendant violating the general public's rights — the freedom of expression, or any right for that matter," said Joe Cook, the state director of the ACLU.
"We still believe that they should not ban inherently legal objects that are used in expressive communication because a few people use the same legal items to enhance the effects of an illegal substance," Cook said.
He said he feared the government would use more plea agreements to violate people's rights.
The plea agreement, announced in June 2001, came after prosecutors had the rave organizers and promoter indicted under federal laws aimed at shutting down crack houses.
Indicted were Robert Brunet, 37, of Metairie; his brother, Brian Brunet, 33, of Tampa, Fla.; and promoter James Estopinal, 32, of New Orleans.
The plea agreement protected the Brunets and Estopinal from criminal charges. Their company, Barbeque of New Orleans, pleaded guilty to the crackhouse violation, was fined $100,000 and agreed to ban the supposedly drug-related items from future raves. The company leased a downtown theater to hold the parties.
According to federal prosecutors, between December, 1997, and March, 2000, more than 70 people overdosed on drugs at the club, called the State Palace Theater, and one 17-year-old died.
The appeals court noted that drug abuse at the club appeared to decrease after the organizers implemented restrictions
No, the raves I've heard of take place with the permission of the property owner (and may involve paid admission, though I'm not sure about that).
Never had an alcoholic beverage of any sort?
I've heard different.
From who?
Last spring, the Chicago City Council decided "to crack down on wild rave parties[... "]. Taking a dim view of such goings-on, the city council passed an ordinance threatening to jail building owners or managers who allowed raves to be held on their property. - http://www.reason.com/0201/fe.js.sex.shtml
But since I'm from Georgia, things might work differently in Chicago.
That's a loaded question, considering my age.
Yes, I have.
Never had an alcoholic beverage of any sort?
Yes, I have.
Then you were mistaken---you HAVE used a drug.
Well, don't tell my parents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.