Go to content Go to navigation Go to search

WYPSIDYOPINEPOL USA

Catchy, isn’t it? Just trips off the tongue. It’s a non-binding resolution I’d like to see passed: the Would You Please Stop Insulting the Dignity of Your Office and the Public’s Intelligence by Naming Every Piece Of Legislation with an Unbelievably Stupid Acronym Act.

The RAVE Act (Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy, HR 718) is back. It amends the federal crack house law to make it easier to fine and imprison business owners that fail to stop drug offenses from occurring on their property—even if they do take steps to stop drug use. (It’s the age of responsibility, after all. Intent doesn’t matter. We only care about results.) —It was shut down by an aggressive campaign of protests, fax blasts and open ridicule last year, but all that is needed for evil to triumph and constant vigilance and yadda yadda. RAVE is spreading like some kind of virus; its basic provisions are in HR 718, the RAVE Act, but over in the Senate they’re S 226, the Illicit Drugs Anti-Proliferation Act (IDAP?) and they’re still buried in the guts of Daschle’s S 22 domestic security bill.

The CLEAN-UP Act (Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize, and Undermine Production of Methamphetamines, HR 834) has—beyond a semantically null acronym—a doozy of a provision tucked inside. Turn with me to Section 305, which would add Section 416A to the Controlled Substances Act:

Whoever, for a commercial purpose, knowingly promotes any rave, dance, music, or other entertainment event, that takes place under circumstances where the promoter knows or reasonably ought to know that a controlled substance will be used or distributed in violation of Federal law or the law of the place where the event is held, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 9 years, or both.

We don’t even need for a crime to have been committed. Or even alleged. If you promote an entertainment event where you reasonably ought to know that drugs could be used or distributed, you’re busted.

The fine folks at the Drug Policy Alliance have put together a fax for your representative. Go kick his or her ass, would you?

—Filed 2135 days ago to ; .

  1. A war resolution should be called:

    The British and USA Lieges Liberating Saddam's Hostages and Interdicting Terrorism Act.
    — Aaron    Mar 4, 11:47 AM    #
  2. Oh, for heaven's sake! Hasn't the US got enough people in prison for non-violent offences without this?
    — pericat    Mar 4, 05:25 PM    #
  3. I feel your pain, but I'm afraid I'm so beaten down at this point by Ashcroft calling each section of the Bill of Rights he's trying to repeal the Fluffy Little Bunny Wrapped in the Flag with Jesus Patting Him Gently on the Head and Protecting Him from the Bad Liberals Lurking in the Corner Wielding Big Meanlooking Sticks Act that I don't even notice the acronyms anymore.

    I predict that the Defense of Cute Things Act will enable the administration to nail ACLU members to a cross and barbecue them on the White House lawn.
    — julia    Mar 5, 03:22 AM    #
  4. and I'd be willing to bet you Bush is a _big_ fan of BBQ sauce with ketchup in it.
    — julia    Mar 5, 03:24 AM    #
  5. Some excellent points, Kip. The Acronymnal Abuse as well as the Bong war follies have reached untenable extremes.

    On CNBC yesterday, I heard Orrin Hatch discussing the capture of Muhammed. He stated that it was attributable to the new capacities permitted by the Patriot Act, stated that the FBI and CIA were previously not permitted to share info "in part because of the leftwing control of law enforcement". And added, in the next breath, a mention of illegal drugs that fund the terrorists.

    So it's a nice catch you made on these points!
    — Cowboy Kahlil    Mar 5, 08:53 AM    #
  6. I just made pretty much the same point over at Cowboy Kahlil's spread, but since people are also known to be high at gas stations and convenience stores, shouldn't all of those be immediately closed too -- for the drug-free good of Our Holy Nation?

    And what about all snack foods? Must they be banned too, for their status as known accomplices to munchie-based terrorist crimes against humanity?

    — skimble    Mar 5, 12:23 PM    #

Commenting is closed for this article.