|
|
| |
|
|
Club Drug Consequences
Anti-Drug Proliferation Act Targets Clubs and Other Entertainment Venues
By Robert F. Lewis and Patrick Keough
The so-called war on drugs has a new semi-secret weapon –– or to be
more accurate –– a new and improved semi-secret weapon: the Illicit
Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003 (the “Act”), also commonly referred
to as the “RAVE Act,” because the act’s earlier version was called the
Reducing American’s Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act. And the most
important thing to know about the Act is that it is designed
specifically to hold club and bar owners and site or event managers
responsible for the drug activity occurring on their premises.
The biggest misconception most club owners have about the Act is that
the law only addresses club owners who are dealing or using, and
nothing could be further from the truth. The Act doesn’t care if you’re
involved or not –– it still holds you responsible –– and it’s important
to be aware of this in order to protect yourself and your establishment.
Back to the Beginning
First, a little history lesson is helpful. Raves were imported from
Europe in the late 1980s. Rave usually refers to a spontaneous or
semi-planned gathering where –– at least on the surface ––
dancing to newer, more aggressive Electronic music is the main event.
However, within a decade of its arrival in the United States, Rave
parties flourished and with them came the use of Ecstasy, or “X” –– the
club drug of choice for an entire generation of partiers. Before too
long, “X” had crossed cultural, generational and musical lines to
become one of the country’s fastest growing forms of casual or
recreational drug use, especially among teenaged and college-aged
demographics.
With the spread of Ecstasy’s popularity came the inevitable national
media attention, with reports detailing the explosive use of the drug,
lurid details of teen promiscuity, drug overdoses and their
consequences, which sometimes are fatal. The outcry for action was loud
–– not just because of the size of the problem but because this drug
craze had secured a solid presence among upper middle America where
“good kids” shouldn’t be dying. Soon, Congress was paying attention.
Anti-drug campaigns targeting the new club culture followed. Momentum
for action eventually led to the federal level, first in June of 2002,
with the drafting of the original RAVE Act, which failed to get through
Congress. However, the 2003 Act broadened the focus of the original act
beyond Raves to nightclubs, bars and lounges and was passed into law.
Under the new Act, if you’re an event organizer, nightclub, bar, hotel
or motel owner, the Act makes it easier for you to be imprisoned or
fined. In essence, the Act threatens a major portion of the
entertainment industry.
The bottom line is this: If federal authorities believe that controlled
substances are being used and/or sold in your establishment –– whether
or not you’re a party to or aware of those activities –– you’re at risk
of being investigated and charged under the Act.
The Act holds the owners, employees and even the managers responsible,
imposing financial penalties and possibly leveling criminal charges.
Under the Act, all entertainment business owners are at risk of
prosecution even where there is no direct link between the alleged drug
use and business owners. It’s a daunting prospect for owners and
operators. The law can now be applied to one-night events such as
concerts, Raves, parties and festivals, as well as permanent venues
such as nightclubs, bars and lounges. The law enforcement community
calls it “willful blindness,” and it doesn’t take much to be found
guilty of it. Even if you escape criminal prosecution, the Act permits
civil suits to be brought against anyone accused of violating the
statute. The standard of proof is then lowered from “beyond a
reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of evidence,” making it more
difficult for those accused to defend themselves.
Recent nightclub raids in Los Angeles and New York City have sparked
concern among nightclub and business owners. While in some cases
nightclub and bar owners ultimately have been exonerated of criminal
charges, usually after months and even years of litigation and appeals,
many have been forced to shut down permanently or relocate due to
business interruption and negative publicity. Surviving an
investigation under the Act or prosecution is very difficult.
Club owners should understand that they can reduce this risk of liability by remembering two Cs: compliance and cooperation.
Working with a problem assesment company, can help operators devise an
action program. As part of the involved service, we can conduct what is
referred to as a “Risk Profile Assessment,” which identifies specific
areas that a club owner has to address to reduce his exposure to Act
prosecution. The client, utilizing the service under my supervision, is
then able to identify problem areas in the club and either minimize
them or eliminate them altogether.
Offense is the Best Defense
One of the best approaches to take is to substantially reduce a an
owner’s Act risk exposure without diminishing the club’s public allure.
This result is something called, “light handprint, heavy impact.”
Additionally, the club owner’s actions create a more positive
relationship with local law enforcement, which typically come to see
him or her as cooperative and not part of the problem –– a big step
towards staying off the Act radar screen. NCB
Robert F. Lewis is a partner at the law firm of Holland &
Knight, LLP, in Florida, practicing alcohol beverage law. He can be
reached at (305) 332-9247. Patrick Keough is the CEO of Corporate
Integrity Services LLC, a premier investigations and litigation support
firm representing a broad range of clients. He can be reached at (877)
502-7770.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
