New
California
Bill
Would
Mandate
90-Day
Minimum
Jail
Term
for
Being
Under
Ecstasy's
Influence
1/11/02
2. New California Bill Would Mandate 90-Day Minimum Jail Term for Being Under Ecstasy's Influence In a move that could affect hundreds of thousands of Californians, state Senator Bob Margett (R-District 29) has introduced a bill in California's Senate to make it a crime to be "under the influence" of MDMA, or ecstasy. The new misdemeanor offense would be punishable by a mandatory 90-day minimum to one-year maximum jail term. A second provision of the bill, SB 1103, would reschedule ecstasy, making it a Schedule I controlled substance under state law. An almost identical bill, AB 1416, was reintroduced this session by Assemblywoman Lynne Leach (R-District 15). The bills are only the latest manifestation of the hysteria surrounding ecstasy and the rave culture in law enforcement and the political class in California. Fueled by sensational media stories and federal fear-mongering, California authorities have swept into high schools across the state, busting students in undercover operations. The state's rave culture has also come under attack, with police arresting 80 people, primarily for ecstasy sales or possession, during the September Nocturnal Wonderland rave in the Mojave Desert and shutting down JuJu Beats 2001 before it could take place in northern Los Angeles County in August. "Ecstasy is tremendously popular," Sen. Margett's press secretary Jody Day told DRCNet, "and law enforcement asked for this bill. They see an overwhelming problem out in the communities. We're helping them do their job, giving them the tools they asked for," Day explained. "This is not the right way to reduce whatever harm may be associated with ecstasy," said Richard Boire, whose Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics has produced a stinging analysis of the proposed legislation (http://www.alchemind.org/dll/sb1103index.htm). "This bill creates an Orwellian thought crime based on a state of mind," the suburban Los Angeles attorney told DRCNet. "This is an ill-conceived, ineffective, and unjust measure," he said. "Both federal and state laws are designed to get those people who harm other people or their property, but this bill doesn't address conduct, it criminalizes a mental state," Boire pointed out. "This bill is aimed at young people, but putting them in jail for 90 days will only disrupt their college, their jobs, their family lives. It will only exacerbate harm," he said. "And how would it be enforced?" Boire asked. "The government would have to resort to totalitarian policing tactics and abusive profiling of young people at raves. It would have to throw a big net over them and force them to take urine tests," he said. "Will they detain people under some sort of reduced probable cause standard? Possession of a glow stick is not a reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring." Press secretary Day's response to DRCNet queries on this topic suggest that the bill's sponsors have not thought through this aspect of their legislation. "I'll have to do some research on that," said Day, "but police may have probable cause based on physical actions that people are taking," she suggested. "There are physical signs that indicate ecstasy use, such as involuntary teeth-clenching." Day did not explain how police would differentiate teeth-clenching caused by ecstasy use from teeth-clenching caused by other reasons. Not to worry, though. "The police will take the same approach as if they thought someone was on heroin," she reassured. In addition to the thought crime provision, the bills would also make ecstasy a Schedule I substance, like cocaine or heroin, under California law. Although federal law classifies ecstasy as a Schedule I drug, California currently does not. Prosecutors, however, can charge ecstasy offenders under the California Controlled Substance Analog Act, so the primary negative impact of this provision will not be increased sentences, but increased obstacles to researchers attempting to study the drug's medical benefits, according to Boire. "All we want to do is have California be in compliance with federal drug schedules," said Day. "What we're trying to do is match California statute to the federal laws." "This would only contribute to a legal landscape that is inaccurately mapped," said Boire. "Ecstasy does not belong in Schedule I. The science shows that and the DEA knows that. Their own Administrative Judge, Francis Young, concluded that 'the evidence of record requires MDMA to be placed in Schedule III' and the evidence of ecstasy's medical uses has only strengthened since then." (Under federal law, a Schedule I drug must have a high potential for abuse; have no currently accepted medical use in the US; and lack a means of safe use under medical supervision.) "If they want to reschedule MDMA, then let's do it properly," said Boire. "Let's have a proper evaluation, let's look at the scientific evidence. Instead, this bill would codify misinformation about ecstasy. Just because the federal government has falsely and incorrectly scheduled MDMA is no reason for California to follow suit." The sponsors of the respective bills are both conservative Republicans. Senator Margett, representing parts of the Los Angeles suburbs, bills himself as a crime fighter and touts his success in passing one of those laws named after the victim of a particularly vicious and sensationalized crime. Assemblywoman Leach, on the other hand, has devoted much of her legislative career to education issues, but recently coauthored a measure that would create an anti-terrorism license plate "to serve as a public reminder of the terrible attack America has suffered and help to unite all Californians in our stand for freedom." Except, apparently, freedom inside their own heads. (Visit http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/ca-ecstasy/ for information and action opportunities on SB 1103, including a link to the state's online legislative tracking system and other resources.)
|
