Glowsticks and pacifiers are legal after all.....

[Torsten]

http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n020402a.html

Monday, February 4, 2002

NEW ORLEANS--In a ruling the American Civil Liberties Union called a "major

victory" for free speech rights, a federal judge today permanently blocked federal

agents from banning masks, pacifiers, and glow sticks at a local dance venue as

part of its nationwide war against rave concerts.

"Today's decision should send a message to government that the way to combat

illegal substance abuse is not through intimidation and nonsensical laws," said

Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, which filed a

challenge to the ban on behalf of rave enthusiasts and performers.

Raves are electronic music concerts that the government seeks to close because

some attendees use the drug Ecstasy. But that approach, Boyd said, is tantamount

to shutting down rock concerts in the 1960s or jazz clubs in the 1920s because

some people are using drugs.

The court today agreed. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous said

that while there is a "legitimate government interest" in curtailing illegal drug

use,

"the government cannot ban inherently legal objects that are used in expressive

communication because a few people use the same legal item to enhance the

effects of an illegal substance."

Judge Porteous also noted that "there is no conclusive evidence that eliminating

the

banned items has reduced the amount of ecstasy use at raves." And in a particularly

stern warning against the Attorney General’s drug war tactics, he concluded, "when

the First Amendment right of Free Speech is violated by the Government in the name

of the War on Drugs, and when that First Amendment violation is arguably not even

helping in the War on Drugs, it is the duty of the Courts to enjoin the government

from violating the rights of innocent people."

Joe Cook, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana, welcomed the court’s

unambiguous defense of free speech rights. "We the people should rejoice in this

blow for our rights and not allow any of our freedoms to become a casualty in the

war on drugs," he said.

The ACLU filed its challenge to the policy in August 2001, after the Drug

Enforcement

Agency forced the owners of a prominent New Orleans dance venue to ban face

masks, glow sticks and pacifiers from their facility, saying that the items

constituted

"drug paraphernalia." As a result of the ban, rave attendees were forced to throw

away or have confiscated personal effects in order to gain entry into dance events

given at the venue.

Boyd said that the government has been holding workshops around the country

citing the New Orleans case as an example of how to shut down a rave. The

government has also encouraged local prosecutors to charge rave promoters as

drug dealers under state and federal "crack house" laws and to engage in excessive

enforcement of parking permits and other local laws in order to disrupt the events.

"Today’s ruling tells law enforcement agents that if you want to target drug use at

raves, you’ve got to play by the rules," Boyd said. "Go after the drug dealers, not

the entertainers and dancers and people who are there to enjoy the show."

The ACLU brought its case against the government on behalf of local rave

enthusiasts, including a former member of the armed forces and an insurance agent

whose masks and glow sticks were confiscated at a rave last summer, and an

internationally renowned performance group that faced cancellation of an act

incorporating glow sticks.

An ACLU online feature on this case, including links to court papers, is available

at http://www.aclu.org/issues/drugpolicy/case...Clure_v_Ashcrof

t.html.

[t st tantra]

WAR against rave concerts,

WAR against drugs,

WAR against terrorism,

i think im beginning 2 c a pattern here!

t s t .

[Darklight]

The proposed enforcement of such stupidity would be akin to outlawing salted snackfoods b/c they are consumed in public places where ppl drive home pissed after the pub shuts

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Darklight:

The proposed enforcement

It had already been inforced. There were several raves where security had to follow these guidelines to avoid getting shut down. I think even having it overturned isn't going to help much as promoters will still fear the implications. Going underground again is probably the best option.

[Darklight]

Originally posted by Torsten:

Going underground again is probably the best option.

Ah yer just nostalgic, you old rebel