U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–263 PDF 2002

REDUCING AMERICANS’ VULNERABILITY TO

ECSTASY ACT OF 2002

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 5519

OCTOBER 10, 2002

Serial No. 109

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin, Vice Chair

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

ERIC HULTMAN, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

OCTOBER 10, 2002

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ........................................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 3

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 4

WITNESSES 

Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Ms. Andrea Craparotta, Investigator, Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, 

New Jersey 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

Ms. Judy Kreamer, President, Educating Voices, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16

Mr. Graham Boyd, Director, Drug Policy Litigation Project, American Civil 

Liberties Union 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Staement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 61

(1)

REDUCING AMERICANS’ VULNERABILITY TO 

ECSTASY ACT OF 2002

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar S. Smith [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will come to order. Before we get to opening statements I would like to make a couple of announcements that will 

be of interest to Members and those in the audience as well. The 

first is that we are going to, of course, proceed with our hearing 

right now. We may be missing a few Members in action because 

there is a mandatory Republican Conference meeting going on 

right now. However, we can expect some more Members shortly. 

The other is that we tentatively had scheduled or moved the 

markup to 1:30 this afternoon, and we are not going to have that 

markup for a couple of reasons. First of all, the hope was that if 

we were going to be in session next week, we might have been able 

to do not only the markup today but get to full Committee or even 

to the House floor next week. But it looks like we are not going to 

be in session next week, so having a markup really won’t serve any 

purpose. In addition to that, we are expecting a series of votes at 

2 o’clock and that would interrupt things for some time. 

So we are going to have a hearing and let this get us off to a 

good start not only today but in the next Congress as well. 

The other thing I want to mention is this might well be, therefore, our last meeting of the Subcommittee this year, and I want 

to recognize the hard work and the very capable work that has 

been done by all members of the staff of the Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security Subcommittee. They are hardworking. They 

have put in more hours than we ever had a right to ask them to 

do. And as most people on the Hill already know, they are overworked and underpaid, but that makes me appreciate their work 

during the course of this Congress even more. 

I also want to acknowledge the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, and 

say to Mr. Scott—and this is an overworked word but it doesn’t 

mean I don’t mean it all the more—it has been a real pleasure to 

have been able to work with him as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee this year. Bobby Scott is an honorable individual of keen 

2

intelligence and strong convictions. And that has made him a ideal 

Ranking Member, I am sure from his point of view and as well as 

my point of view, and I don’t want to underestimate that. While 

there are many honorable Members of Congress who have integrity, I really do put Bobby Scott at the top. And it has, as I say, 

been a privilege to work with him this year. 

I will also say in regard to the strong convictions, I wish they 

weren’t always quite so strong. And I wish we had gotten a few 

more votes, but that is totally aside from my high regard for him. 

And I should say, too, since he is the only other Member present, 

Adam Schiff of California has been a joy to have on the Committee 

as well. He is thoughtful. He too has a keen intellect and has been 

willing to work with us to do what is best for the country and that 

is appreciated more than I can say. I happen to think that Adam 

Schiff is one of the outstanding new Members of Congress, and 

hope he will be around for many years to come, although that is 

not necessarily an official endorsement, Adam, but we appreciate 

all that you have contributed as well. 

With that, we will go to opening statements and I will acknowledge myself first. 

Today the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security examines H.R. 5519, the ‘‘Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability 

to Ecstasy Act of 2002.’’

Each year, tens of thousands of young people are initiated into 

the drug culture at Rave parties. Raves are one of the most popular 

venues where club drugs are distributed. Because some club drugs 

are colorless, odorless and tasteless, they can be added, without detection, to beverages by individuals who want to intoxicate or seduce others. 

Studies overwhelmingly confirm that club drugs are not harmless 

fun party drugs as they are often portrayed. While users of club 

drugs often take some of these drugs for energy to keep on dancing 

or partying, research reveals these drugs can have long-lasting negative effects on the brain, altering memory and behavior. 

One of the more disturbing drugs being used at Raves is GHB. 

It is a powerful central nervous system depressant that is also 

known as a date rape drug. Overdoses tend to be more frequent 

with GHB than with other club drugs, especially when used in 

combination with alcohol. Reported GHB-related emergency episodes in the United States have increased dramatically in recent 

years from just 56 in 1994 to 4,969 in the year 2000 according to 

the Drug Abuse Network Survey. 

This legislation directs the Sentencing Commission to review and 

amend the penalties for offenses that involve GHB. Although there 

may be Rave promoters who discourage drug use, there are others 

who seek to profit from the drug activity at their events. Some promoters actually distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at 

their events, have thinly veiled messages on their promotional fliers, and tell their security guard to ignore drug use or sales. 

H.R. 5519 will ensure that these criminals who portray their 

events as alcohol-free parties that are safe places for young adults 

to go to dance with friends will not be able to use any loophole in 

the law to escape prosecution. 

3

The most important thing we can do to win the war on drugs is 

to keep our young people from ever using drugs to begin with. The 

goal of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s demand reduction 

program is to educate the public about the dangers of drugs. This 

is accomplished by educating community leaders, parents, teachers, 

and counselors in implementing drug prevention and education 

programs. 

H.R. 5519 provides funds for the DEA to assign a demand reduction coordinator in every State in order to provide leadership and 

support to local agencies and organizations as they develop drug 

prevention and education programs. The purpose of this bill is not 

to suppress any type of music or lawful gathering of teenagers, as 

some critics have suggested. Its only purpose is to deter illicit drug 

use and protect our Nation’s children. 

I appreciate the witnesses who are here today. They are all experts on the subject and we very much look forward to their testimony. And that concludes my opening statement and I will recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, 

for his. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you 

in convening this hearing on the RAVE Act of 2002. It didn’t occur 

to me that this might be the last Subcommittee meeting of the session, so I want to thank you for the dignity with which you have 

been able to conduct these hearings. I think it is a matter of public 

record that the Judiciary Committee is probably the most contentious Committee of all, dealing with some of the most controversial 

issues, with people who have very strongly-held ideas, and being 

able to conduct hearings in this Committee with dignity is sometimes quite a challenge. 

So I want to thank you for that and I want to thank our staffs 

because of their ability to work together even when there are profound disagreements on the issues. Being able to work through, I 

think, is an example of how you can disagree without being disagreeable, and that atmosphere in this Committee is set pretty 

well by the Chairman. So I want to thank you for your hard work 

and dedication and for setting an appropriate tone so that we can 

get through some very controversial issues without some of the 

problems that have occurred in other Committees in the House. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am pleased to also join you in welcoming our colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, as a witness at the hearing 

in his relatively new role as director of an agency that owes so 

much of its present strength to his service on this same Subcommittee when he was a Member of Congress and the full Judiciary Committee. And we welcome him back to this room where he 

served very ably. 

Mr. Chairman, you have outlined a significant problem caused by 

drugs generally and by Ecstasy specifically, and I hope we can 

work together to address this issue. I am particularly supportive of 

your focus on prevention as an integral part of that strategy. 

The issue before us, this bill, deals with an area in which many 

of the activities covered in the bill are already illegal. It is illegal 

for someone to control and operate a building for the purpose of illegal drug distribution. This bill would leave no doubt about that. 

4

However, I am aware there are concerns that it paints with too 

broad a brush. So I look forward to the testimony of witnesses to 

see how that issue works. 

One point I would like to be enlightened on: Why is it necessary 

for the Federal Government to be involved in what appears to be 

a local issue, and how that complies with the Lopez or Lopes decision, which essentially asked Congress to stay out of local issues? 

But there is little doubt that we have jurisdiction under most drug 

control laws. Given the obvious local impact of the problem the bill 

seeks to affect, it is not clear why it might not be better dealt with 

with local law enforcement rather than Federal agents. I can see 

the Federal Government lending assistance to local officials or even 

prosecuting the more serious violations of existing Federal drug 

laws, but the issue before us seems to be something that could be 

handled by public nuisance laws if the affected locality and State 

do not have more specific laws. 

With all the mandatory minimum sentences and lengthy maximums that we have directed under the sentencing guidelines, Federal intervention should be reserved in my view for those situations 

which are not conducive to State and local prosecution and control. 

So I hope to hear more about that during the hearing. 

There are allegations of potential constitutional issues, unfairness to legitimate club owners and special event operators posed by 

the legislation, and we seek to get information on that. The bill 

goes a long way in trying to prevent those from being problems, so 

we will hear from witnesses. 

I am impressed with the list of witnesses we have at our hearing 

and I look forward to their testimony and on other issues raised 

by this legislation. So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

the hearing and for your hard work over the past 2 years. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Mr. Scott. 

Are there other Members who have an opening statement. The 

gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I really just wanted to echo the sentiments that the gentleman before me echoed, and thank you for the 

way you conducted the Subcommittee in an extraordinarily professional manner. And it is a joy to be on this Subcommittee. And 

having served on a public safety committee in the State legislature 

and recognizing that the difficulty of these issues often provoke 

very bitter exchanges, I think it is wonderful that we have an absence of that kind of incivility. And it is really a credit to your leadership and I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me proceed and introduce our witnesses and we 

will begin with them. First is the Honorable Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, and, as Mr. Scott 

mentioned a while ago a former colleague of ours on this Subcommittee and on the full Judiciary Committee as well; Andrea 

Craparotta, Investigator, Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office, 

New Jersey; Judy Kreamer, President, Educating Voices, Inc; and 

Graham Boyd, Director of Drug Policy Litigation Project, American 

Civil Liberties Union. 

And we welcome you all and we will begin with the Honorable 

Asa Hutchinson who I understand has a short video for us to watch 

before he begins his official testimony. 

5

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ASA HUTCHINSON, 

ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Scott, Mr. Schiff. Thank you for the comments that you have made, 

and we do have a brief video that might be illustrative of the points 

of discussion before I begin my testimony. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I believe that concludes the presentation, Mr. 

Chairman, if I might proceed. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing on the problems of 

club drugs, a variety of things, including predatory drugs, and also 

delving into the issue of Raves. Many people think that these club 

drugs are exclusively used at Raves but they are also available on 

the streets of America to our youth. 

First, as the Chairman indicated, the health hazards pertaining 

to Ecstasy and the club drugs are substantial. They include longterm neurological damage and addiction. There are clearly numerous instances of sexual assaults, overdoses, and deaths attributed 

to the use of Ecstasy and the predatory drugs. 

In a recent DEA drug-facilitated training conference, Gail 

Abarbanel, founder of the nationally recognized Rape Treatment 

Center, estimated that 15 to 20 percent of all rapes were facilitated 

with drugs, which is why GHB and other such drugs are referred 

to as predatory drugs. Consider the fact that of every 100 rapes in 

the United States, 32 are reported to the police, 16 result in an arrest, only 13 defendants will face prosecution, only 7 will be convicted, and out of the 100, only 5 will go to prison. And the reason 

only 1 out of every 20 rapists will go to jail: Predatory drugs which 

can incapacitate victims and impair memory have an impact on 

that, and make the successful prosecution of sexual predators that 

much more difficult. 

Ecstasy and its popularity has increased in recent years along 

with the emergency room visits associated with its use. As the 

Chairman pointed out, the Drug Abuse Warning Network estimates of nationwide hospital emergency room mentions for Ecstasy 

have increased substantially since 1997 when there were 637 mentions versus over 5,000 mentions in 2001. And 77 percent of the Ecstasy room mentions were attributed to patients 25 years of age 

and under. 

So why have Ecstasy and the predatory drugs become so popular 

among America’s youth? Well, in part it may be the youthful impulse to experiment, but this vulnerability is preyed upon by market-savvy promoters and drug distributors. 

Raves, which appeared in the United States in the late eighties 

and early 1990’s, act as a gateway for the introduction of Ecstasy 

and predatory drugs to America’s youths. Raves are organized, promoted, and financed by local and national enterprises to advertise 

through word of mouth, fliers, posters, telephone, radio and the 

Internet. Many Raves are advertised as drug- and alcohol-free to 

give party-goers and parents a false sense of security. While many 

of these parties may be alcohol-free, the open distribution of these 

drugs is common. And the Internet is used by having colorful and 

creative Web sites set up to advertise the Raves. 

6

1 In FY2001, the DEA seized approximately 8 million dosage units. 

2The investigation took place in 2001, not this year. 

The dealers are equally creative with how they package the drug 

itself. Colorful die stamps and tablets with designer labels and colors are utilized. The profit incentive attracts the criminal organizations and the criminal entrepreneurs. The vast majority of Ecstasy 

is synthetically manufactured in clandestine labs in The Netherlands and in Belgium. A typical clandestine lab is capable of producing 20 to 30 kilograms of Ecstasy per day and the profit margins are substantial. The cost of producing one Ecstasy tablet is between 25 cents and $1. Wholesale price is $1 to $2. But once in the 

United States, it can be distributed by a bulk distributor who will 

charge 6 to $12 per tablet, and an Ecstasy retailer in a club very 

often will charge 20 to $30 per tablet. So you are going from a very 

minimal cost of production to the street value of up to $30 per tablet. 

Even if you considered it at $20 per tablet, one kilogram of Ecstasy would generate $140,000 in profit. And so there is a profit 

motive in people moving to that. 

We are concerned that other criminal organizations will expand 

the network of the distribution of Ecstasy. We have seen instances 

in which Colombian cocaine traffickers will exchange cocaine for 

Ecstasy. We do not want the Colombian traffickers to get involved 

in Ecstasy distribution. The threat of Ecstasy and predatory drugs 

is clear. 

The DEA at the direction of Congress has taken significant steps 

to address it. We have enhanced our enforcement operations. DEA 

offices report a significant escalation in Ecstasy seizures worldwide. 

In 2001, DEA alone seized approximately 91⁄2 million dosage 

units compared to less than 1 million in 1997.1 Our cases have increased, with the arrests going from 443 in 1999 to almost 1,800 

in 2001. 

A couple of examples of some of the investigations and enforcement actions: In February of this year in Idaho, we conducted a 

lengthy investigation that resulted in the arrests of 23 defendants, 

including the Rave promoter Jaime Collins who pleaded guilty to 

the crack house statute for a Rave he sponsored in the year 2001.2

In Houston Texas, we dismantled an organization responsible for 

the distribution of over 1 million Ecstasy tablets. Just last month, 

we brought down Operation Webslinger in which we targeted the 

illegal Internet trafficking of predatory drugs from GHB to GBL to 

1,4-BD. This unprecedented operation marked the most significant 

national operation targeting those using the Internet to peddle 

their drugs. 

What was particularly disturbing was that many of these individuals were people who hold positions of trust in our society, such 

as an emergency room physician, a former high school teacher and 

a former police officer. These Internet Web sites were located out 

of operations from Sparta, Tennessee to Festus, Missouri. So they 

could be operated in rural America as well as urban America. We 

made arrests of over 136 defendants in over 100 cities, seized over 

3,600 gallons of the predatory drug GBL/1,4-BD. 

7

And in addition to our domestic operation, we have enhanced our 

international operations. I traveled personally to The Netherlands 

to work with our Dutch officials who I have been pleased to learn 

have enhanced their operations. They have invested a substantial 

amount of Government money to create five synthetic drug units 

to enhance their investigations in The Netherlands. And this increased activity by The Netherlands law enforcement and increased 

DEA presence there hopefully will yield substantial benefits for an 

area that produces over 80 percent of the world’s supply of Ecstasy. 

Finally, as Ranking Member Scott mentioned, we have not just 

concentrated our enforcement actions, but we developed a national 

awareness program. We have combined with the National Association of Women Legislators to enhance our education efforts in our 

schools and our communities with young people, and this will be 

an ongoing effort into next year. And so we are grateful for this 

Committee’s leadership on looking at legislation that will be helpful, but also enhancing the public awareness of the problem of Ecstasy, club drugs and predatory drugs. And I thank the Chair. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Mr. Hutchinson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASA HUTCHINSON

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), commonly referred to as ecstasy, 

and the predatory drugs GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate),GBL (gamma butyrolactone), and 1,4-BD (1,4-butanediol) pose an enormous threat to America’s teens and 

young adults. These drugs, formerly distributed almost exclusively at ‘‘Raves’’, can 

now be found in America’s high schools, colleges, and many other social setting. Scientific studies have shown that use of these drugs cause significant health hazards, 

including long term neurological damage and addiction. Numerous instances of sexual assaults, overdoses and deaths are attributed to the use of ecstasy and predatory 

drugs. 

To address this threat, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has initiated 

numerous enforcement successes and generated various innovative demand reduction 

programs including:

• Targeting and dismantling major international ecstasy and predatory drug organizations, curbing the shipment of these drugs into the United States

• Continuing to collect, analyze, and distribute vital intelligence information 

concerning the ecstasy and predatory drug trade to state, local, and international law enforcement entities

• Developing a national ecstasy and predatory drug awareness campaign

• Working in conjunction with associated local, state, federal, and community 

groups, DEA advances education and prevention strategies of ecstasy and 

predatory drugs

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Scott, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to appear before this Subcommittee for the first 

time as the head of the DEA regarding the effects that ecstasy and predatory drugs 

have on our country. As always, I would like to personally express my gratitude to 

the Subcommittee for your unwavering support for the men and women of the DEA. 

THE THREAT

Ecstasy 

Ecstasy is the one of the most significant emerging drug threats facing America’s 

youth today. Its popularity, along with emergency room visits associated with its 

use, has skyrocketed in recent years. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) 

estimates that nationwide hospital emergency room mentions for ecstasy rose sharply from 637 in 1997 to 5,542 in 2001. 

Ecstasy users experience both hallucinogenic and stimulant effects which last several hours. Abusing ecstasy can produce a number of adverse effects including seVerDate Jan 17 2002 14:41 Nov 25, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\101002\82263.000 HJUD1 PsN: 82263
8

vere dehydration, exhaustion, nausea, hallucinations, increase in body temperature, 

tremors, heart attack and ultimately death. Ecstasy may also create after-effects, 

such as anxiety and depression. Ecstasy related deaths have been recorded with 

users’ core body temperatures reaching 107 to 109 degrees. 

Visibly less dramatic, but of equal concern, is the potential long-term harm the 

drug may cause to the brain. A study conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins 

Medical Center revealed that habitual ecstasy abusers suffer long-term neurological 

damage. The study indicates that recreational ecstasy users may be in danger of developing permanent brain damage that might manifest itself in the form of depression, anxiety, memory loss, or neuro-psychiatric disorder. In a second study just 

published in the Journal of Science and conducted by scientists at Johns Hopkins 

University, primates were injected with two or three doses of ecstasy over a few 

hours. The study discovered evidence that severe brain damage occurs to the nerve 

cells, which produce the neurotransmitter dopamine in the area of the brain controlling movement. The study concluded that neurological damage could stay hidden for 

years and increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease and associated movement-related 

disorders. 

In addition, numerous major scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals 

have shown significant impairments in memory and learning in individuals who 

have ingested ecstasy. The fact that all of these drugs are clandestinely produced 

in unsanitary laboratories results in uncontrolled purity, an immense threat to public health and safety. Those most at risk are our kids. In 2001, 77 percent of the 

5,542 Ecstasy emergency room mentions were attributed to patients age 25 and 

under. 

THE PREDATORY DRUGS

GHB/GBL/1,4-BD 

In a recent DEA drug-facilitated sexual assault training conference, Gail 

Abarbanel, founder and director of the nationally recognized Rape Treatment Center, estimated that 15%–20% of all rapes were facilitated with drugs, which is why 

GHB and other such drugs are referred to as predatory drugs. Consider the following: 

Of Every 100 Rapes in the US:

• 32 are reported to the police

• 16 result in an arrest

• 13 defendants will face prosecution

• 7 will be convicted

• 5 will go to prison

• Bottom Line: Only 1 out of every 20 rapists will go to jail. Predatory drugs, 

which can incapacitate victims and impair memory make the successful prosecution of sexual predators that much more difficult.

Illicit GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate), a Schedule I central nervous system depressant, was banned by the FDA for sale as a dietary supplement in 1990. GHB 

generates feelings of euphoria and intoxication. It is often used with ecstasy and 

other drugs and mixed, sometimes without the victim knowing, in carbonated, alcoholic, or health food drinks. GHB is popular among adolescents and young adults. 

At lower doses, GHB causes drowsiness, nausea, and visual disturbances. At higher 

dosages, unconsciousness, seizures, severe respiratory depression, coma and death 

can occur. 

In 1994, there were 56 emergency room admissions nationwide related to GHB. 

In 2000, there were almost 5,000 GHB emergency room admissions. 

THE MARKETING SCHEMES

So why have ecstasy and predatory drugs become so popular among America’s 

kids and young adults? In part, it may be the youthful impulse to experiment. But 

this vulnerability is preyed upon by marketing-savvy promoters and drug distributors. Raves, which appeared in the United States during the late 1980s and early 

1990s, acted as a gateway for the introduction of ecstasy and predatory drugs to 

America’s youth. Raves are organized, promoted, and financed by local and national 

enterprises that advertise through word of mouth, fliers, posters, telephone, radio, 

and the Internet. Many raves are advertised as ‘‘drug and alcohol-free’’ to give partygoers and parents a false sense of security. While many of these parties may be 

alcohol-free, the open distribution of ecstasy, predatory drugs and other club drugs 

is commonplace at many of these venues. 

9

Promoters reach kids using there own language and their own medium, the Internet for example. Colorful and creative web-sites are setup to advertise raves as well 

as drugs. How can you spot a web-site or advertisement promoting ecstasy? It is 

not hard, if you know what you are looking for: the letter E (for ecstasy), talk of 

‘‘rolling’’ (or getting high on ecstasy) and other references are used to promote the 

drug. The dealers are equally creative with how they package the drug itself. Colorful die stamps and tablets with designer labels and colors are utilized. In addition, 

enhancement products including fluorescent light sticks, lollipops, pacifiers, menthol 

nasal inhalers, surgical masks, Vicks Vapor Rub and various other items increase 

the stimulation of the drug’s effects. None of these things are, or should be, illegal. 

Only the selling of this illicit drug is illegal. But parents should be aware of some 

of the signs of potential drug use. 

One alarming fact about ecstasy and predatory drugs is the increased popularity 

among high school and college students. These are not simply ‘‘club’’ drugs. There 

are clear indicators that these drugs are used, not just at nightclubs and raves, but 

have spread to other social settings and are widely available on the streets. Recent 

findings from SAMHSA’s 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse are not 

encouraging. In 2001, 8.1 million Americans aged 12 and older had used ecstasy, 

up from 6.5 million in 2000. 

THE SOURCE

So, how are these drugs getting into the country? After all, ecstasy is not generally made in America. Ecstasy is synthetically manufactured in clandestine laboratories predominately in the Netherlands and Belgium, which produce the vast 

majority of the ecstasy consumed worldwide. A typical clandestine laboratory is capable of producing 20–30 kilograms of ecstasy per day, with one kilogram of ecstasy 

producing approximately 7,000 tablets. Dutch Police reported the seizure of one laboratory capable of producing approximately 100 kilograms of ecstasy per day. 

Think about these numbers and the enormous profit margins they represent. Although estimates vary, the cost of producing one ecstasy tablet is between $.50–

$1.00. The wholesale price for ecstasy tablets ranges from $1.00–$2.00, contingent 

on the volume purchased. Once the ecstasy reaches the United States, a domestic 

cell distributor will charge from $6 to $12 per tablet. The ecstasy retailer, in turn, 

will distribute the ecstasy for $20 to $30 per tablet. At $20 per tablet, one kilogram 

of ecstasy would generate $140,000. At $30 per tablet-$210,000. 

The transportation and distribution of ecstasy trafficked in the United States are 

controlled by various factions of Israeli and Russian Organized Crime groups. These 

groups recruit and utilize American, Israeli and western European nationals as 

couriers. Couriers can smuggle 2 to 5 kilograms on their persons and 10 kilograms 

of ecstasy in specially designed luggage. In addition to the use of couriers, these organizations commonly exploit commercial mail services to arrange delivery of their 

merchandise. 

Although Israeli and Russian ecstasy trafficking organizations dominate the ecstasy market in the United States, other drug trafficking organizations based in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Asia, and Mexico have entered the ecstasy trade. 

Dominican and/or Colombian nationals smuggling cocaine to Europe have exchanged 

their cocaine for ecstasy pills, a significant quantity of which will be destined for 

U.S. cities. Indonesia authorities recently seized a large-scale ecstasy laboratory in 

Jakarta, which resulted in the seizure of over 300 pounds of ecstasy. As ecstasy 

proves more profitable and as law enforcement pressures force the traffickers to regroup, the U.S. ecstasy trade will become increasingly diverse. 

THE SOLUTION

The threat presented by ecstasy and predatory drugs is clear. Therefore, so is the 

need for action. To this end, DEA has established a pro-active, balanced strategy 

that combines enforcement efforts with educational and demand reduction tactics. 

First, let’s look at the enforcement side: 

DEA established the Dangerous Drugs Unit within the Office of Domestic Operations Section at DEA Headquarters that specifically addresses the abuse and trafficking of GHB and other controlled substances. The Dangerous Drugs Unit provides 

management, funding, guidance, and support to domestic and foreign investigations 

that target organizations and individuals involved in the manufacture and distribution of ecstasy, predatory drugs and club drugs. This specialized unit also coordinates investigations concerning the use of controlled substances in the facilitation 

of sexual assault. 

DEA offices report a significant escalation in ecstasy seizures worldwide. In 2001, 

the DEA seized approximately 9.5 million dosage units of ecstasy in the United 

10

States, compared to 661,702 dosage units in 1997. The number of DEA cases has 

also increased substantially, with ecstasy arrests increasing from 443 in 1999 to 

1,792 in 2001. 

DOMESTIC OPERATIONS

Beginning in February 2001, DEA in Idaho and local law enforcement conducted 

a lengthy investigation concerning the sale of ecstasy in the Boise, Idaho area. This 

investigation led to the arrest of over 23 individuals for the distribution of ecstasy, 

ketamine, and other predatory drugs. Rave promoter Jaime Collins pleaded guilty 

to the ‘‘crack house statute’’ in this investigation for a rave he sponsored during 

2001. In May of this year, five additional defendants were indicted in this case for 

various federal drug violations. 

On August 28, 2002, a federal grand jury in Houston, Texas returned two indictments, charging 34 individuals and two corporations with a variety of drug and 

money laundering offenses. This organization was responsible for the distribution of 

more than one million ecstasy tablets in Houston and elsewhere. In September of 

this year, arrests were initiated regarding targets of the investigation. The indictment sought forfeiture action against 7 million dollars in assets, including two 

nightclubs and three residences in the Houston area. 

Just last month, Operation Webslinger, a two-year investigation, targeting the illegal internet trafficking of predatory drugs such as GHB and its analogues, GBL 

and 1,4 BD, was concluded. This unprecedented operation, involving several federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies, marked the most significant national operation targeting organizations and individuals using the Internet to peddle their 

drugs. What was particularly disturbing was that many of these individuals were 

people who hold positions of trust in our society—such as an emergency room physician, a former high school teacher and a former police officer. 

The conclusion of this operation resulted in enforcement operations in over 100 

cities, the arrest of 136 individuals, the seizure of approximately 3,600 gallons of 

predatory drugs (GBL / 1,4-BD), which equates to 25, 000,000 dosage units, over $1 

million in assets, as well as 44 weapons. 

Last week, a two-year multi-agency investigation was culminated in the criminal 

indictment of 10 individuals charged with participating in a conspiracy to import 

and distribute ketamine. The lead defendant of the investigation, Jorge Chevreuil 

Bravo, was also charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE). 

Details of this investigation indicated that members of the Bravo organization solicited orders of ketamine and other pharmaceuticals from United States customers 

and distributors through an Internet website. The website provided contact numbers 

for Bravo and other distributors of Ttokyo products in Mexico, a pharmaceutical 

manufacturing company. Ttokyo brand ketamine produced in Mexico was being 

smuggled into the United States and provided to distributors in California, Florida, 

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York. 

As a result of this investigation, DEA seized approximately 70,000 vials of 

ketamine and $500,000.00. Nine defendants were arrested. Mexican law enforcement authorities seized approximately 400 kilograms of ketamine. 

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

Mr. Chairman, a great deal of ecstasy coming to the United States is produced 

in the Netherlands, so earlier this year, I traveled there to see firsthand what we, 

working with our international colleagues, can do to stop this threat. During a meeting with Dutch police officials, we discussed their efforts to address the synthetic 

drug problem in their country. Five years ago, the Dutch Police initiated the Synthetic Drug Unit (SDU) pilot project, created to target ecstasy and synthetic drug 

organizations. An evaluation of the SDU was completed last year and due to the 

need, the SDU was expanded and five teams, comprised of 15–25 Dutch police, were 

added. These teams have been assigned to different areas of responsibility within 

the Netherlands. The SDU also was allocated approximately $90 million, over five 

years, to fund synthetic drug enforcement, as well as to improve international cooperation. 

DEA enforcement operations with host countries are substantial and have resulted in the seizure of millions of dosage units of ecstasy destined for the U.S. In 

February 2002, Dutch authorities, while executing a search warrant in Ankeveen, 

the Netherlands, seized approximately 350 kilograms of ecstasy powder, a tableting 

machine and 80 different die-cast stamps. Intelligence information indicated this ecstasy was intended for distribution in the U.S. In addition, over the last four-month 

period, DEA and the Brussels Country Office have seized approximately 4 million 

ecstasy tablets, also destined for the U.S. 

11

Last month, DEA met with European law enforcement agencies in Berlin, Germany, to coordinate worldwide investigative activity related to the international 

trafficking of ecstasy. Each participating agency prepared a list of goals and targets 

that was used to identify members operating for the purpose of disrupting and dismantling these drug trafficking organizations. DEA has also implemented plans to 

reallocate resources from other offices to the Netherlands to better confront the ecstasy threat. 

Our domestic efforts are paying off in the international arena as well. Besides the 

domestic cases I outlined earlier, just this summer, two large-scale ecstasy traffickers, Meir Ben David and Josef Levi, were extradited from Israel, as a result of 

being charged in Miami for conspiracy to import and possession with intent to distribute ecstasy. This marked the first extradition of any Israeli citizen to the United 

States for a drug crime. 

THE ECSTASY AND PREDATORY DRUG AWARENESS CAMPAIGN

Despite these encouraging enforcement successes, DEA recognizes that enforcement alone is not enough to stop this new threat. We also must raise awareness 

and educate the public about the dangers of ecstasy and predatory drugs. That’s 

why DEA is developing a national awareness campaign. The focus of the campaign 

is three fold:

1) Educate kids, parents, health and law enforcement communities

2) Demonstrate DEA’s broad based commitment to fighting the impact these 

drugs have on our society by building coalitions nationwide to fight this 

threat in our communities and reduce demand for the drug

3) Fulfill the Attorney General’s responsibilities as defined in the 2002 Annual 

Report Regarding Date-Rape Drugs; National Awareness Campaign

One example of DEA’s commitment toward a national campaign can be found in 

our recent partnership with the National Foundation of Women Legislators (NFWL). 

DEA has joined with NFWL in a common cause: educating the American public 

about the dangers of ecstasy and predatory drugs. Robin Read, President and CEO 

of the NFWL, called the partnership, ‘‘one of the most innovative programs the 

NFWL has embarked upon in its 64 year history.’’

THE TRAINING VENUES

Finally, another important aspect of DEA’s efforts to combat ecstasy and predatory drugs is to train other organizations to join the fight. In fact, DEA has been 

out front on this effort for a few years now. In the summer of 2000, the agency 

hosted the first-ever International Conference on Ecstasy and Club Drugs in partnership with approximately 300 officials from domestic and foreign law enforcement, 

judicial, chemical, prevention and treatment communities. 

And earlier this year, DEA held its first-ever training class on drug-facilitated 

sexual assault. DEA also has prepared training aides concerning drug-facilitated 

sexual assault for law enforcement in the field. In addition, the Department of Justice has developed and posted on the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) 

intranet forensic training material to enhance the collection and testing of evidence 

for these cases. This material is accessible to thousands of federal, state, and local 

law enforcement officers. 

CONCLUSION

Ecstasy, predatory drug and club drug trafficking and abuse will continue to be 

a priority for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Through the development of 

our national ecstasy and predatory drug campaign, DEA will work with educators, 

prevention specialists, and community action groups to raise awareness and educate 

America’s youth about the dangers of ecstasy and predatory drugs. At the same 

time, our agents, in conjunction with our Dangerous Drugs Unit, will continue to 

target and dismantle the criminal organizations that produce, transport and distribute these drugs. As with DEA’s overall strategy in fighting drug abuse, crime 

and addiction, we will continue to focus on a balanced approach that combines prevention, education, enforcement and treatment. And we will continue to depend 

upon individuals like you, respected members of Congress, to join with us and attack this threat from all angles. 

Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today 

and I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Craparotta. 

12

STATEMENT OF ANDREA CRAPAROTTA, INVESTIGATOR, 

MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, NJ 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name is Andrea Craparotta. I am an investigator with the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office in New Jersey. Over the course 

of my career I have been assigned to various units, including sex 

crimes, homicide, and narcotic enforcement. Having worked as an 

undercover operative in the field of narcotic enforcement for over 

10 years, I have purchased illegal drugs on hundreds of occasions 

and have participated in thousands of investigations involving 

county, State and Federal agencies. During this time, I have witnessed many drug trends develop that involve illegal drugs. 

I was part of a team that initiated an undercover operation into 

the world of Ecstasy use and its culture. What I observed was 

shocking and many of the images were covertly captured on surveillance tape. Ecstasy has emerged as a favorite among today’s 

youth. Unlike the well-known dark images of heroin and cocaine 

addiction that the public has become familiar with, many still 

think that Ecstasy is a harmless pill that has no adverse effects on 

society. Young adults who would not consider sticking a needle in 

their arm or smoking from a crack pipe are now popping Ecstasy 

at an alarming rate. What was once an underground drug only 

seen at Rave parties has now infiltrated our nightclubs, house parties and even our schools. 

Ecstasy hit New Jersey with a frightening impact that had not 

been seen before. From suburban towns to popular vacation communities, there was an alarming increase in the number of drug 

overdoses. During 1 weekend, Ecstasy use impacted the New Jersey shore, resulting in over 30 drug overdoses associated with Ecstasy and club drugs. 

The following week an undercover operation was initiated inside 

the popular nightclubs in Ocean County. I was one of the undercover officers who for the entire summer spent most Thursday and 

Saturday nights inside the clubs where Ecstasy was purchased and 

ingested. As undercover officers we would enter these clubs around 

10 p.m., mingle with patrons and buy Ecstasy. The scenes within 

the clubs were bizarre. After sometimes waiting hours in line and 

spending up to $40 cover charge to enter the establishments, young 

adults would line up at the bars and pay $5 to $10 for 14-ounce 

bottles of water. The temperature inside the club in the beginning 

of the evening would be that of a meat locker. Within a short period of time, the clubs would fill up, young adults would take Ecstasy and begin gyrating oddly to the pulsating techno-music. No 

one on Ecstasy stood still. Because Ecstasy raises a body’s core 

temperature, the clubs would soon become extremely hot. Dehydrated patrons consumed large amounts of bottled water and began 

to strip off their clothes. It was not unusual to see most of the men 

shirtless, and on several occasions women would dance in their 

bras or bare chested. 

Because Ecstasy heightens one’s senses, patrons would constantly touch one another regardless of gender. Sex acts were often 

simulated on the dance floor. The rapid movement of glow sticks 

and laser lights inside the bar seemed to put Ecstasy users in a 

13

hypnotic trance. It was not uncommon to see glow sticks coiled up 

inside the mouths of the Ecstasy users. When they spoke, the inside of their mouths would glow bright neon colors. 

Young adults sucking on pacifiers and lollipops were also a common site. They did this to keep from grinding their teeth, which is 

a side effect of Ecstasy use. Patrons who would overload their bodies on club drugs would sometimes fall limp at the bar. Young men 

and women were often carried out in a semiconscious state. By 

night’s end, Ecstasy transforms the dance floor into a mass of 

sweaty young bodies moving in a surreal state of endless motion. 

Users who mixed their club drugs could be seen standing around 

in a trance-like noncommunicative state. I witnessed well-groomed 

young adults vomiting on the dance floor and standing in their own 

vomit, either unable to or uninterested in moving. A particularly 

disturbing case occurred when a young woman overdosed. Her body 

temperature exceeded 107 degrees when she died later at a local 

hospital. 

As an undercover operative I purchased Ecstasy for up to $20 per 

pill. Buys were made in bars, phone booths, stores, parking lots. No 

location was exempt from an Ecstasy deal. Most dealers were 

young adults who traveled to source cities such as New York and 

Philadelphia and purchased Ecstasy in mass quantities for 5 to $10 

per pill. 

The typical Ecstasy dealer and user looked like any middle-class, 

clean-cut young adult. Most appeared to be in their early twenties. 

Unlike the thin pale look of many heroin and crack cocaine users, 

Ecstasy users are primarily well-built, well-groomed young adults 

with healthy outward appearances. It was not until much later 

that I heard many complain of depression and memory loss, as well 

as express fear of what brain damage they may have already incurred. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee 

and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Ms. Craparotta. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Craparotta follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREA CRAPAROTTA

Chairman Smith and members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify before you today. My name is Andrea Craparotta. I am an investigator 

with the Middlesex County ( New Jersey) Prosecutor’s Office. Over the course of my 

career, I have been assigned to various units including Sex Crimes, Homicide and 

Narcotic Enforcement. 

Having worked as an undercover operative in the field of narcotic enforcement for 

over 10 years, I have purchased illegal drugs on hundreds of occasions and have 

participated in thousands of investigations involving county, state and federal agencies. During this time I have witnessed many trends develop that involve illegal 

drugs. I was part of a team that initiated an undercover operation into the world 

of Ecstasy use and it’s culture. What I observed was shocking and many of the images were covertly captured on surveillance tape. 

Ecstasy has emerged as a favorite among today’s youth. Unlike the well-known 

dark images of heroin and cocaine addiction that the public has become familiar 

with, many still think that Ecstasy is a harmless pill that has no adverse effects 

on society. Young adults who would not consider sticking a needle in their arm or 

smoking from a crack pipe are now popping Ecstasy at an alarming rate. What was 

once an underground drug only seen at ‘‘Rave’’ parties has now infiltrated our nightclubs, house parties and even our schools. 

Ecstasy hit New Jersey with a frightening impact that had not been seen before. 

From suburban towns to popular vacation communities, there was an alarming inVerDate Jan 17 2002 14:41 Nov 25, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\101002\82263.000 HJUD1 PsN: 82263
14

crease in the number of drug overdoses. During one weekend, Ecstasy use impacted 

the New Jersey shore resulting in 30 overdoses associated with Ecstasy and ‘‘Club’’

drugs. The following week an undercover operation was initiated inside the popular 

nightclubs in Ocean County. I was one of the undercover officers, who, for the entire 

summer, spent most Thursday and Saturday nights inside the clubs where Ecstasy 

was purchased and ingested. 

As undercover officers we would enter these clubs around 10:00 p.m., mingle with 

the patrons and buy Ecstasy. The scenes within the clubs were bizarre. After sometimes waiting hours in line and spending up to a $40 cover charge to enter the establishments, young adults would line up at the bars and pay $5 to $10 on fourteen 

ounce bottles of water. The temperature inside the clubs in the beginning of the 

evening would be ice cold. 

Within a short period of time the clubs would fill up, young adults would take 

Ecstasy and begin gyrating oddly to the pulsating ‘‘techno’’ music. No one on Ecstasy stood still. Because Ecstasy raises the body’s core temperature, the clubs 

would soon become extremely hot. Dehydrated patrons consumed large amounts of 

bottled water, and began to strip off their clothes. It was not unusual to see most 

of the young men shirtless and on several occasions women would dance in their 

bras or bare chested. Because Ecstasy heightens one’s senses, patrons would constantly touch one another, regardless of gender. Sex acts were often simulated on 

the dance floor. 

The rapid movement of glow sticks and laser lights inside the bars seemed to put 

Ecstasy users in a hypnotic trance. It was not uncommon to see glow sticks coiled 

up inside the mouths of the Ecstasy users. When they spoke, the inside of their 

mouths would glow bright neon colors. Young adults, sucking on pacifiers and lollipops, were also a common sight. They did this to keep from grinding their teeth, 

which is a side effect of Ecstasy use. Patrons who would overload their bodies on 

‘‘Club’’ drugs would sometimes fall limp at the bar. Young men and women were 

often carried out in a semi-conscious state. 

By night’s end, Ecstasy transforms the dance floor into a mass of sweaty bodies 

moving in a surreal state of endless motion. Users who mixed their ‘‘Club’’ drugs 

could be seen standing around in a trance like, non-communicative state. I witnessed well-groomed young adults vomiting on the floor and standing in their own 

vomit, either unable to or uninterested in moving. A particularly disturbing case occurred when a young woman overdosed. Her body temperature exceeded 107 degrees 

when she died later at a local hospital. 

As an undercover operative, I was purchasing Ecstasy for up to $20 per pill. Buys 

were made in bars, phone booths, stores and parking lots. No place was exempt 

from an Ecstasy deal. Most dealers were young adults who traveled to source cities 

such as New York and Philadelphia, and purchase Ecstasy in mass quantities for 

$5 to $10 per pill. The typical Ecstasy dealer and user look like any middle class, 

clean cut, young adult. Most appeared to be in their early to mid twenties. 

Unlike the thin, pale look of many heroin and crack cocaine users, Ecstasy users 

are primarily well-built, well-groomed, young adults with healthy outward appearances. It was not until much later that I heard many complain of depression and 

memory loss, as well as express fear of what brain damage they might have already 

incurred. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee and look forward 

to answering any questions you may have.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Kreamer. 

Oh, we have a video, Ms. Craparotta? 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. What we have here is some footage taken covertly inside a club and you will see a young woman in this tape. 

This was a very common occurrence. You will see a young woman 

here, basically overdosing right at the bar. 

Mr. SMITH. This is, what, about 30 seconds long? 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. Yes. 

[Video shown.] 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. You notice she has a water in her hand. You 

can cut it if you are pressed for time. It is a typical example of 

someone overdosing. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you again. 

Ms. Kreamer. 

15

STATEMENT OF JUDY KREAMER, PRESIDENT,

EDUCATING VOICES, INC. 

Ms. KREAMER. This is an honor indeed to appear before you. Society has been duped with fallacious statements about the safety 

and efficacy of drugs and has heard little about the dangers. The 

need for extensive education on the dangers of Ecstasy is imperative. 

Porter County, Indiana was the site of a Labor Day weekend 

Rave party. Last March, the organizers went there and rented the 

fairgrounds under the auspices of having a drug-free youth weekend. Two weeks before Labor Day, the sheriff’s office finally figured 

out that the event was going to be a Rave party. By that time it 

had already been promoted over the Internet and people were coming from coast to coast. They expected thousands. They estimated 

the crowd to be between 3- and 5,000 but, interestingly, there were 

only 40 cars that held Indiana license plates on them. 

In only a 2-week period, Sheriff David Reynolds was able to organize an aggressive strategy to handle the situation. According to 

Sheriff Reynolds, the most alarming fact they uncovered was the 

extent of the behind-the-scenes organization. It was essential to police the event as it was being set up, because once it got started 

it was very difficult to police. Ten dogs were used to inspect everything that was taken into the fairgrounds. Sheriff Reynolds calls 

the Rave organization and promoters organized crime. The Rave 

party incensed the county of 150,000 people. They didn’t want their 

children exposed to the drugs and they didn’t want the traffic that 

it generated. 

There needs to be an educational network that informs all communities about the tactics used by Rave promoters. The Internet 

lured people to Porter County for the Rave weekend, and every day 

it lures this generation into using Ecstasy with a reasoning that is 

superficially plausible but dangerously fallacious. 

There are very few who are out there challenging the misinformation. Young people do not understand how dangerous Ecstasy 

is. They need to be confronted with the reality of these dangers, 

and the best way to do that is with an aggressive educational campaign that tells the facts, using true and graphic stories. 

I asked a number of young heroin addicts: What would have 

stopped you from ever using heroin? They told me that the only approach would have been to have shown them what the life of a 

$300-a-day heroin addict was like, showing before-and-after pictures of the addict, the abscesses on their arms, their life on the 

streets, and an addict in withdrawal. 

The same is true of Ecstasy users. I was in the audience for the 

Oprah Winfrey Show when the topic was Ecstasy. And by far the 

most compelling arguments for not using Ecstasy was the picture 

of a young woman whose brain looked like Swiss cheese. 

Last week I spent 2 days with six people from the Partnership 

for a Drug-Free America in Illinois, visiting the Kane County drug 

court. The Partnership people heard story after story from addicts 

and family members and are now going to attempt to tell those stories. This will go a long way toward educating the general public. 

A high school held an assembly on 9/11 to mark the day with 

great speeches and patriotic music, but then glow sticks synonyVerDate Jan 17 2002 14:41 Nov 25, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\101002\82263.000 HJUD1 PsN: 82263
16

mous with Rave parties were passed out. They were then used as 

they would be used at a Rave party. We can’t be giving mixed messages. We can’t be giving uninformed messages. Educators need to 

be educated. Presently there are many demands for school funds, 

but drug prevention is not really one of them. 

Most adults have no idea what Ecstasy is. If you queried your 

peers about Ecstasy, what it looks like, how it works and what it 

can do, I imagine that most of them would not know. Virtually no 

parents have any idea what the drug is, what the signs and symptoms of its use are, and how dangerous it is. Years ago we used 

to have a standardized first aid chart detailing what should be 

done in the case of bites, burns, cuts, et cetera. Today we need a 

standardized chart listing the signs and symptoms of illegal drugs, 

the effects, and what to do when someone is using. 

It is a travesty that the public is so poorly educated about lifethreatening illegal drugs. We are in desperate need also of national 

leaders who will use their bully pulpits to educate the public about 

the dangers of illegal drugs. The director of ONDCP, John Walters, 

is rarely seen. The director of the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, and retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis are the most visible in 

the drug debate and are considered by prevention people throughout the country to be our leaders. There are Members of Congress 

who are champions of the cause, but we need more. 

For the most part, the medical community has been very quiet 

about the harms associated with Ecstasy, and this is because most 

physicians know nothing about it. Physicians should be one of the 

first lines of defense against illegal drug use by alerting patients 

and family members to the possibility that an individual is using 

drugs. Dismayingly, physicians are not taught the pharmacology of 

illicit drugs and are unable to identify the signs. 

On another challenging note, the media is conflicting in their reporting of Ecstasy. And on the nightly news last week, Peter Jennings told about new research from Johns Hopkins showing serious 

risks associated with as little as a single dose of Ecstasy. But then 

he qualifies it and goes on and says they have had other stories 

that have said it is safe. 

Society, and most importantly our children, are being duped into 

believing that illegal drugs are safe. They do not understand the 

dangers associated with their use. This can only be countered 

through education, networking, leadership and a national determination. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Ms. Kreamer. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kreamer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDY KREAMER

History will show that drug use was allowed to flourish in the late 20th-century 

and early 21st-century in part because society did not grasp the tremendous harm 

associated with the use of illegal drugs. Society has been duped with fallacious 

statements about the safety and efficacy of drugs and has heard little about the 

dangers. 

An unsuspecting county rented its fairgrounds out for a Labor Day Weekend rave 

party, an uninformed high school staff permitted ‘‘glo-sticks,’’ synonymous with rave 

parties, to be distributed at a ‘‘9/11’’ memorial assembly, and a conflicted Peter Jennings, on the ‘‘Nightly News’’ reported on new Ecstasy research which associated serious risks with a single dose of the drug but then added that they have had other 

17

stories about the safety of Ecstasy. The need for extensive education on the dangers 

of Ecstasy is imperative. 

Porter County, IN was the site of the Labor Day Weekend rave party. The organizers rented the county fairgrounds under the auspices of having a drug-free youth 

weekend. Two weeks before Labor Day the Sheriff’s office determined that the event 

was going to be a rave party. The party was promoted coast to coast on the Internet 

(www.liveonthedecks.com) and thousands were expected. The crowd was estimated 

to be 3,000–5,000, and only 40 cars with Indiana license plates were counted. 

In only a two week period, Sheriff David Reynolds, was able to organize an aggressive strategy to handle the situation. According to Sheriff Reynolds, the most 

alarming fact they uncovered was the extent of the behind-the-scene organization. 

There were event vendors and local vendors. The Sheriff found that the event vendors were involved in drug trade. It was essential to police the event as it was being 

set up because after it got started it was almost impossible to police. Ten dogs were 

used to inspect everything that was brought into the fairgrounds. Undercover enforcement officers reported being approached by event vendors to bring in drugs. 

With this aggressive law enforcement approach taken by the Sheriff there were only 

three overdoses and seven arrests. 

Sheriff Reynolds calls the rave organization and promoters organized crime. He 

is very concerned about the organizers being allowed to ‘‘pray upon our children,’’

and insists that the federal government must investigate the promoters. The rave 

party incensed the county of 150,000. They didn’t want their children exposed to the 

drugs and didn’t want the traffic that the event generated. There needs to be an 

educational network that informs all communities about the tactics used by rave 

promoters. 

The Internet lured young people to the Porter County rave weekend and everyday 

it lures this generation into using Ecstasy with a reasoning that is superficially 

plausible but dangerously fallacious. There are very few who are challenging their 

misinformation. 

Young people do not understand how dangerous Ecstasy is. They need to be confronted with the reality of these dangers, and the best way to do that is with an 

aggressive educational campaign that tells the facts, using true and graphic stories. 

In response to the question, ‘‘What would have stopped you from ever using heroin?,’’ young heroin addicts told me that the only approach would have been to show 

them the life of a $300-a-day heroin addict, before and after pictures of the addict, 

the abscesses on their arms, their life on the streets and an addict in withdrawal. 

The same is true of Ecstasy users. I was in the audience of the Oprah Winfrey Show 

when the topic was Ecstasy and by far the most compelling arguments for not using 

Ecstasy was the picture of a young woman whose brain looked like Swiss cheese. 

Last week I spent two days with six people from the Partnership for a Drug-Free 

America in Illinois visiting the Kane County Drug Court. The Partnership people 

heard story after story from addicts and family members and are now going to attempt to tell their stories. This will go a long way toward educating the general public. 

Educators, parents, members of the faith community, government workers, business people and politicians have little to no understanding of the dangers of Ecstasy. 

Most don’t even know what it is and most don’t want to be bothered. 

A high school held an assembly on 9/11 to remember the day with great speeches 

and patriotic music; but then ‘‘glo-sticks’’ were passed out and some students started 

using them as they would at a rave party. We can’t be giving mixed messages; we 

can’t be giving uninformed messages. Educators need educating. Presently, there 

are so many demands for school funds that drug education is not a priority. There 

is little money spent on drug prevention and little understanding of how heavily it 

impacts learning and the school’s success. 

Most adults have no idea what Ecstasy is. If you queried your peers about Ecstasy, what it looks like, how it works and what it can do, I imagine that most 

would not know. Virtually no parents have any idea what the drug is, what the 

signs and symptoms of its use are, and how dangerous it is. Years ago we used to 

have standardized ‘‘First Aid’’ charts detailing what should be done in the case of 

bites, burns, cuts, etc. Today, we need a standardized chart listing the signs and 

symptoms of illegal drug use, the illegal drugs, the effects, and what to do when 

someone is identified as using an illegal drug. It is a travesty that the public is so 

poorly educated about life-threatening illegal drugs. 

We are in desperate need of national leaders who will use their bully pulpits to 

educate the public about the dangers of illegal drugs. The Director of ONDCP, John 

Walters, is rarely seen. The Director of the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, and retired Lt. 

Col. Robert Maginnis are the most visible in the drug debate and are considered 

18

by prevention people throughout the country to be our leaders. There are some 

members of Congress who are champions of the cause, but we need more. 

For the most part, the medical community has been very quiet about the harms 

associated with Ecstasy and this is because most physicians know nothing about it. 

Physicians should be one of the first lines of defense against illegal drug use by 

alerting patients and family members to the possibility that an individual is using 

a particular drug. Dismayingly, physicians are not taught the pharmacology of illicit 

drugs and are unable to identify signs and symptoms of Ecstasy and other illegal 

drug use. The medical community needs to be educated about illegal drugs. Unfortunately, the few physicians who do speak out are politically active in the pro-legalization efforts. 

On another challenging note, the media is conflicted in their reporting on Ecstasy 

and their messages. On the ‘‘Nightly News’’ last week, Peter Jennings told about 

new research from Johns Hopkins showing serious risks associated with as little as 

a single dose of Ecstasy. But, he qualified the report by saying that they have had 

other stories indicating Ecstasy’s safety. Earlier, there was a television program 

done on Ecstasy, which in part featured ‘‘Dance Safe,’’ an organization that purportedly checks the Ecstasy pills at rave parties to determine their quality. The message 

that could be taken from the program was that Ecstasy was safe to use as long as 

it was quality Ecstasy. It is critical that the media be educated. 

Society and most importantly our children are being duped into believing that illegal drugs are safe, and they do not understand the dangers associated with their 

use. This can only be countered through education, networking, leaders, and a national determination.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Boyd. 

STATEMENT OF GRAHAM BOYD, DIRECTOR, DRUG POLICY 

LITIGATION PROJECT, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

Mr. BOYD. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Scott, Mr. Schiff, 

thank you so much for having me here today. It really is a pleasure. I thought I was here to express the other point of view but the 

subject today is the RAVE Act, and what I have heard from the 

three witnesses so far is about international control efforts, about 

arresting drug dealers at Raves in New Jersey. 

And I couldn’t agree more about aggressive public education. 

This act doesn’t do any of that. This act makes new law which allows going after innocent business owners. Nobody here disagrees 

about the dangers of drugs or really most of what has been said 

here, but I want to be the one witness to talk about the legislation 

that is before this Committee and what is wrong with it and some 

of what is right about it, too. 

I think there is a recognition here that there are some Rave promoters who are drug dealers. Mr. Smith, your opening statement 

referred to a couple of those cases. Those people were arrested and 

convicted. And you know they were charged under the drug conspiracy laws, because when you deal drugs, of course you are guilty 

of that crime. We don’t need this act to get those people. But there 

are other situations, too, where you have people who are putting 

on an event, who aren’t themselves involved in drugs in any way 

at all. They aren’t drug dealers and aren’t hiring drug dealers and 

aren’t getting paybacks from the drug dealers, but they do have 

some inkling that drug use may go on at their event, just as would 

be true if you put on a Rolling Stones concert, a reggae concert, any 

number of different concerts. If you are putting on that concert, you 

know some of the people are going to be using drugs, and in truth, 

there is probably not anything you could do to absolutely guarantee 

that that would not happen. You can take reasonable steps. 

19

And that is what the State Palace Theater case in New Orleans 

was about. There are four cases that the proponents of this bill 

have sort of been putting forth; three of them involved drug dealers. I don’t have a problem with those convictions. 

The fourth one in New Orleans is one I was intimately involved 

in, and I want to tell you a little bit about that case. The prosecution never made any claim that those individuals were dealing 

drugs or that they were directly involved in the drug activity. What 

they pointed out, though, was that they should have known that 

drug use was going on in their property. That is probably true. 

But there are a lot of exaggerations that have been given to Congress by the former Administrator of the DEA concerning that case, 

and they are sort of in circulation out there. There is a claim, for 

instance, there were 3 to 400 overdoses at a handful of events at 

the State Palace Theater. That is not true. There was a stipulation 

entered into by the Department of Justice—and I have attached it 

to our testimony—saying that there were 30 to 40 people who were 

treated for possible drug overdose at about 50 different Raves. That 

is not a good thing. And don’t get me wrong; I am not defending 

that. 

But let us stick to the facts in really what is happening here. 

There are some Raves where you got bad actors and we already 

have laws that can go after them. You have other ones where people who are legitimate businessmen, who are putting on an event 

that inherently is going to involve some illegal conduct, and who 

really do do everything they can to stop it. 

Now, the State Palace Theater proprietors had a zero tolerance 

policy. They met with DEA agent, Peter Rose, and said we are 

going to stop people and we are going to call you up and we want 

you to come over and take them away. They did that. Agent Rose 

never showed up to take any of them away. I understand he probably had other priorities. And again I am not trying to criticize the 

Agency, but these folks were doing the best they could with the 

business they were in. They were following the industry standards 

and yet they were charged under the Federal crack House law. 

They faced up to 20 years in prison. They spent over $100,000 

defending themselves to ultimately keep themselves out of prison, 

which they did. They were terrified. These were people who had 

never been arrested for anything before in their lives. 

If you pass this bill into law, you are giving a green light to that 

as a drug-enforcement strategy of going after innocent people who 

themselves aren’t involved in drug activity. 

I know there have been statements by some of the proponents on 

the Senate side of this bill saying that is not our intention here, 

and I believe them. I believe that is the case. But the fact is you 

put these words into the statute book, then the prosecutorial discretion doesn’t rest in the Members who enacted it. It rests in the 

law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice. 

And what they did in New Orleans was to go after innocent people. And they have now gone around the country—and I have got 

transcripts from the trial where DEA agents Scutter and 

Templeton talk about how they have spoken at 25 conferences 

around the country training other agents in how to infiltrate Raves 

20

and go after and convict people putting on Raves, even if they are 

not involved in drug activity. 

That is not the way we should be enforcing laws in this country. 

And the civil penalty provision of this law ends up being sort of a 

back-door repeal of some of the really good work this Committee 

has done on asset forfeiture reform. It says that the burden of proof 

is going to be just preponderance of the evidence, and you can end 

up making a business man pay hundreds of thousands of dollars 

in fines without benefit of counsel, without benefit of a jury. It is 

one of the only places in the law that that would be true. 

Now, if Raves are a problem, let us not make Ravers the victim. 

Don’t make it music that is the victim of our drug-enforcement 

strategy. Let us do what these witnesses are saying. Let us identify 

the importers. Let us identify the dealers. Let us arrest them if we 

need to, and let us educate the kids. Let us not make innocent 

business people the victims of this. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Mr. Boyd. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRAHAM BOYD

Thank you for inviting me to testify today concerning H.R. 5519, the RAVE Act 

on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its approximately 

300,000 members. I appreciate this opportunity to share with this Subcommittee our 

analysis of the serious flaws in this proposed legislation. 

The ACLU is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and 

advancing civil liberties. We do not accept government funding of any kind. 

I. OVERVIEW. 

The Senate version of the RAVE Act began as a non-controversial, bipartisan effort aimed at reducing drug use. But in targeting legitimate business owners who 

provide a popular form of musical entertainment, the bill has engendered enormous 

controversy, landing on the front page of The Washington Post, eliciting thousands 

of letters and calls from constituents, and ultimately causing some Senators to withdraw their sponsorship. The reasons for this turnabout can be summarized in three 

main points:

1. The language of the bill makes legitimate, innocent businesses into potential 

targets for a felony charge if the nature of their business makes it impossible 

to guarantee that no drug use will occur on their property.

2. Beginning with its very name, the bill makes one particular genre of music 

into a target for federal prosecution. In light of current DEA enforcement 

strategies, which use the Crack House Statute against innocent rave promoters, it becomes particularly troubling that the bill provides no protection 

for legitimate rave events. Whether intentional or not, the bill opens the door 

to decimation of electronic music and dance, one of the most popular and vibrant forms of popular culture today.

3. Rather than eliminating drug use or even entirely eliminating raves, the bill 

would drive raves underground and discourage basic health precautions. It 

would have the perverse effect of making drug use more dangerous.

The RAVE Act expands Section 416(a) of the Controlled Substance Act, also 

known as the ‘‘crack house statute’’, to make it easier for the federal government 

to fine and/or imprison business owners that fail to prevent their customers from 

committing drug offenses on their property. Although it is clear that proponents of 

the RAVE Act are trying to target Ecstasy and raves, the RAVE Act would allow 

federal prosecutors to target other events, such as Hip Hop concerts, country music 

events, and anywhere else drug offenses occur—which is essentially everywhere. It 

would apply to hotel and motel owners, cruise ship operators, stadium owners, landlords, real estate managers, and event promoters. It is so broadly written that anyone who used drugs in their own home or threw an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which one or more of their guests used drugs could potentially face a 

$500,000 fine and up to twenty years in federal prison. If the offense occurred in 

a hotel room or on a cruise ship, the owner of the property could also go to jail. 

21

1 In the 15 years since its passage, every application of this statute prior to the State Palace 

case involved owners or managers of property who in some way assisted the manufacture, storage, distribution, or use of drugs. The majority of cases under the statute specifically involve 

the operation of a literal crack house. e.g., United States v. Morgan, 117 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 

1997); United States v. Verners, 53 F.3d 1400 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Cabbell, 35 F.3d 

1255 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Banks, 987 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Church, 970 F.2d 401 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Beyond these cases, every other case has involved a defendant who was directly involved in the 

sale or production of drugs. e.g., United States v. Becker*, 230 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000) (defendant manufactured methamphetamine in his home); United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556 

(5th Cir. 2000) (defendant restaurant owner arranged and negotiated drug purchases, ran conspiracy to distribute cocaine, used business to conceal drug trafficking); United States v. Moore, 184 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant unloaded drug shipments, used his home for storage 

facility in drug conspiracy); United States v. Bilis, 170 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1999) (defendant bar 

owner purchased drugs, warned drug dealers of police surveillance); United States v. Soto-Silva, 129 F.3d 340 (5th Cir. 1997) (defendant handled money for drug trafficking enterprise, smuggled 

drugs, and provided his property for packaging); United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 

1995) (defendant manufactured and possessed methamphetamine with intent to sell); United 

States v. Cooper, 966 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1992) (defendant distributed crack out of his private 

club); United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079 (11th Cir. 1992) (defendant used his home for temporary storage of drugs, distribution to drug sellers); United States v. Lancaster, 968 F.2d 1250 

(D.C. Cir. 1992) (defendant arranged for drug sales on his property); United States v. Tamez, 941 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1991) (defendant used car dealership for cocaine trafficking, used cocaine, 

and purchased cars for business with proceeds from illegal drug activity); United States v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1990) (defendant motel owner alerted drug sellers of police presence, 

stored drugs on premises, loaned money for the purchase of drugs for resale); United States v. Onick, 889 F.2d 1425 (5th Cir. 1989) (defendant Tolliver manufactured and distributed drugs 

out of his apartment). 

Before analyzing the problems with this bill, some emphasis must be placed on 

the history of this issue. The ‘‘crack house statute’’ itself is notoriously broad, giving 

prosecutors the ability to punish business owners for the offenses of others. The saving grace of this broadly drafted statute has been a uniform practice of targeting 

only those business owners who commit substantive drug offenses or conspire with 

those that are committing drug offenses—in other words, criminals who distribute 

drugs.1 But, as part of a self-proclaimed anti-rave initiative, the DEA and federal 

prosecutors have sought to use the crack house law to punish business owners that 

are not only not involved in drugs but are actively trying to prevent drug offenses 

on their property. 

II. THE DANGER OF ALLOWING UNFETTERED DISCRETION IN

PROSECUTION OF BUSINESS OWNERS. 

The proponents of the Rave Act insist that new tools are needed to deal with unscrupulous rave promoters. They point to examples in Idaho and Arkansas, where 

rave promoters were convicted under drug distribution and conspiracy laws for selling ecstasy at their raves. Such conduct is, of course, illegal under existing laws, 

and no new laws are needed to deal with it. 

The proponents of the Rave Act also argue that new tools are needed for rave promoters who have no connection themselves to drug activity, but who hold a concert 

where audience members use drugs. The case of the State Palace Theater in New 

Orleans is held up as the prototype of this kind of prosecution. A close examination 

of that case—one relying on the actual facts rather than rumors or innuendo—demonstrates the serious danger in allowing drug laws to expand to encompass individuals who have no actual involvement in drug activity. As a federal judge wrote in 

the closing chapter of the State Palace case:

Although this Court recognizes the perils of drug use, especially by young people, 

and this Court recognizes that the intentions of the agents and prosecutors involved were pure, 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.

Put most simply, the federal government should return to the task of identifying 

and stopping illegal drug activity, whether it occurs at a rave or elsewhere. The government must not allow for harassment or punishment of innocent business owners 

who are unable to guarantee absolutely that drug use will not occur on their property. 

Robert Brunet manages the State Palace Theater in New Orleans, following a 

long family tradition of providing movies and live entertainment to the local population. Mr. Brunet hired James Estopinal to arrange and promote electronic music 

22

concerts—what the government refers to as ‘‘raves’’—but which are nothing more 

than musical exhibitions at which disc jockeys (DJs) perform computer-generated 

electronic music for a crowd of dancers. Mr. Estopinal is one of the best known, 

widely popular promoters of electronic music in the southern United States and 

throughout the nation. The prosecution in this case made no claim that any of these 

men ever engaged in any drug related activity whatsoever. 

DEA officials have implied in other Congressional hearings that the State Palace 

proprietors somehow condoned or encouraged drug use. This is not the case, nor was 

any such claim ever made in the actual State Palace case. The State Palace instituted a zero-tolerance policy that absolutely forbid possessing, selling or using drugs 

on the premises. Signs throughout the venue announced this policy, as well as an 

offer that free tickets were to be given to anyone who turned in a person with drugs. 

Security guards refused to admit people who appeared to be intoxicated. Over the 

past several years, the defendants arranged for many arrests due to their zero-tolerance policy. This includes the arrests of security guards who were found to be selling drugs. 

During the recent federal trial (the transcript of which is attached to this testimony), Robert Brunet described how he had invited the DEA into the State Palace 

Theater, helping them dress as undercover ‘‘ravers’’ and allowing them to pose as 

security guards. Additionally, he had an arrangement whereby anyone caught with 

drugs would be detained, and the DEA and New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) 

would be notified of the situation and asked to arrest the detainee. Mr. Brunet enforced the zero-tolerance policy, repeatedly detaining those caught with drugs and 

arranging for their arrests. However, agents from the DEA and officers from the 

NOPD repeatedly ignored the notifications, and on more than one occasion, the detainee had to be released after the drugs were destroyed, because no one came to 

arrest them. Furthermore, the State Palace on multiple occasions requested the 

service of an NOPD detail to assist in the prevention of drug use at their rave concerts, but their requests were denied. 

Despite the history of efforts to cooperate with law enforcement, the DEA decided 

to conduct a prolonged undercover investigation of electronic music concerts at the 

State Palace Theater. DEA Agents purchased what purported to be drugs from 82 

individuals over the course of four or five events. As detailed in the attached testimony of two DEA agents, almost half of the purchases did not test positive as a 

controlled substance. The agents did not pursue investigations or prosecutions for 

any of the sales at the State Palace. The usual method of arresting drug dealers 

themselves was shunted aside in favor of pursuing the businessmen who provide the 

music that some drug users and non-drug users alike find entertaining. 

The State Palace case has been justified by DEA officials as a last-resort response 

to a dire crisis. In testimony before the Committee that proposed the Senate’s ver- sion of the Rave Act, the past DEA Administrator claimed that ‘‘400 to 500 teenagers and young adults’’ had suffered drug overdoses at the State Palace raves. In 

truth, the Department of Justice has stipulated that, over the course of some 50 

rave events, only 30–40 individuals needed medical attention because of possible 

drug use. (See attached trial testimony.) This is not to suggest that even a single 

incident is trivial, but the accurate facts simply do not support the extraordinary 

move of seeking a felony conviction against entertainment providers who are not 

themselves involved in drug activity. 

The owner of any venue where a concert takes place knows that a concert involves 

some risk of injury from overheating, exhaustion or fights, as well as some risk that 

some members of the audience may suffer the effects of drugs or alcohol. For these 

reasons, the State Palace ensured that medical personnel were on hand to assist or 

transport anyone in need. Again, the attached trial transcript includes Mr. Brunet’s 

description of his actions in this area. He hired the City’s own ambulance service 

and followed a protocol common for any large entertainment event. Yet prosecutors 

maintained that his reasonable precautions reveal connivance in running a drug operation. Finally, the government points to the fact that defendants sold bottled 

water (at the same $3 price as the nearby SuperDome) and provided an air-conditioned cooling-off room at an event involving thousands of energetic dancers as evidence of a crime. 

In short, a businessman who had never been charged with any crime in his life 

and who was following the business practices standard in his industry suddenly 

faced the prospect of up to 20 years in prison. No doubt Robert Brunet could have 

predicted that some drug use would take place at a concert (rave or otherwise), and 

he probably realized his sensible precautions could not prevent all such drug use. 

Yet, because he went ahead with holding a concert where drug use might occur, he 

was branded a criminal. Surely the Crack House Statute was never intended to 

reach so far, and yet this is precisely how federal agents used it. 

23

Further compounding the harms of the State Palace case, DEA decided to make 

it the centerpiece of its newly declared ‘‘Anti-Rave Initiative,’’ described in the attached Department of Justice Bulletin. Taking New Orleans as the model, DEA 

agents are told to identify and then investigate rave promoters. The DEA agents 

who led the State Palace investigation describe in the attached trial transcript how 

they have traveled around the nation, training other agents at dozens of seminars 

in the techniques of shutting down raves using the Crack House Statute. Even as 

the proponents of the Rave Act assure legitimate businesses that the law is not 

aimed at them, the clear practice of DEA has been to select and pursue targets, not 

based on information about drug activity, but based on the fact that the event is 

a rave. Even the most law-abiding promoter of a rave can expect to be investigated, 

and in many cases threatened with prosecution unless he can perform the impossible feat of guaranteeing that no drug use will occur at his event. The passage of 

a law entitled the Rave Act will only bolster this misguided approach. 

III. THE RAVE ACT DOES NOT PROTECT INNOCENT BUSINESS OWNERS

The RAVE Act is disturbing because at the very time it is expanding the applicability of a law that already lacks adequate protection for innocent business owners, 

it lowers the standard of proof needed to punish them. It is quite simply too broadly 

written and could subject innocent business owners to enormous fines or prison sentences, especially restaurant and nightclub owners, concert promoters, landlords, 

and real estate managers. 

The RAVE Act would enact provisions allowing the federal government to bring 

civil suits against alleged violators, instead of filing criminal charges. This is a remarkable reduction of the standard of proof that the government will have to meet 

to punish people and is clearly designed to compensate for the fact that federal prosecutors are having a difficult time making their cases. The bill’s addition of the 

word ‘‘temporarily’’ undermines the very purpose of the ‘‘crack house statute’’ which 

was targeting property that was being used primarily for drug offenses, not making 

property owners liable for isolated actions that occur on their property, whether 

they are there or not. 

Under the existing crack house law, several courts have accepted the argument 

that ‘‘knowingly’’ should apply to the business owner (as in knowingly opening your 

place of business to the public) and ‘‘for the purpose of’’ should apply to the customers (as in using a club or hotel room for the purpose of using or selling drugs). 

Aside from the State Palace Case, the prosecution has also presented evidence that 

the defendant was directly involved in drug activity, usually as a supplier or conspirator. Any adjustment to the law needs to make clear that such nexus to drug 

activity is a prerequisite, that an innocent person with no intent to violate the law 

cannot be punished—yet this is precisely how the language of the bill now reads. 

Complicating the lives of business owners is the fact that there is simply no way 

for them to know what is legal or illegal until a court or jury decides. They will 

not know what steps they can take to protect themselves from fines and imprisonment. They will not even know what activities are suspect or not. On the one hand, 

such legal and mundane activities as selling bottled water, allowing people to dance 

with glow sticks, or hiring an ambulance service can become ‘‘proof’’ that they were 

encouraging drug use. On the other hand, such extraordinary measures as training 

DEA agents how to dress like ravers, hiring security guards, and holding suspected 

drug offenders until police arrive, offers no protection from prosecution. 

If a realistic and fair effort were made to ensure appropriate business conduct, 

it would certainly included guidance about how to comply with the law. It is not 

sufficient to say that a businessman, like Robert Brunet of the State Palace, can 

fight his case in court. The cost and anxiety of doing so are enormous. What is critically needed is a ‘‘safe harbor’’ for business owners. What it means to knowingly 

make one’s place of business available for drug offenses needs to be clearly defined. 

Property owners need to know what steps they can take to prevent being fined or 

prosecuted and those responsible owners that take those steps should not be fined 

or prosecuted. Business owners need to clearly know what is legal and illegal and 

what will and will not be used against them. 

IV. RAVE ACT WILL CURTAIL FREE SPEECH AND MUSICAL EXPRESSION. 

The RAVE Act serves as a clear assault on raves and electronic music. The reality 

is that property owners, promoters, and event coordinators could be fined hundreds 

of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves 

or other events on their property—even if they work hard to deter drug use. Although the substance of this law is neutral and would apply equally to all events 

and all locations, it is clear that it will not be enforced equally. If the bill becomes 

24

law, property owners may be too afraid to rent or lease their property to groups 

holding raves, other all-night dance parties, rock or Hip-Hop concerts, or any other 

event that federal prosecutors do not like. This will have a definite chilling effect 

on free speech and musical expression. 

As noted by the Supreme Court in evaluating the impact of improper prosecutions 

of civil rights advocates in the 1960’s, ′′the chilling effect upon the exercise of First 

Amendment rights may derive from the fact of the prosecution, unaffected by the 

prospects of its success or failure.’’ Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 487 (1965). The same holds true today. The mere threat of prosecution will surely serve to eliminate protected expression, even if that is not the intent of Congress in enacting the 

measure. This chilling effect is made all the more likely by the bill’s vagueness, the fact 

that there is no safe harbor that lets business owners know what they can do to 

prevent prosecution, and the lack of criteria for them to know what is legal and illegal. The bill’s addition of the word ‘‘temporarily’’ will allow business owners to be 

punished for isolated incidents, as opposed to patterns of abuse. Thus, the RAVE 

Act will likely be used against business owners that host controversial or unpopular 

events on their property simply because a drug offense occurs despite good security. 

They could be punished for this one event, and other business owners may be too 

afraid to host such events in the future. That this bill allows punishment without 

the guarantees available in criminal cases makes the stifling of free speech and musical expression a certainty. 

V. THE RAVE ACT WILL HARM THE PEOPLE IT IS MEANT TO HELP. 

The RAVE Act will likely make youth less safe and put them in greater danger. 

At the very time that rave culture is becoming mainstream and holding events at 

some of the most reputable and safe nightclubs in the nation, this bill will have the 

perverse effect of driving raves and other events underground and away from emergency care and hospitals. If legitimate and responsible business owners are scared 

away from holding raves and other all-night dance parties, raves will simply move 

back into abandoned warehouses and cornfields. Moreover, because this law will 

allow prosecutors to insinuate that selling bottled water, offering air-conditioned 

‘‘cool off’’ rooms and having ambulances present is proof that owners are encouraging drug use, the bill may make business owners too afraid to implement the kind 

of safety measures that will save lives. Such health measures as freely available 

water and air-conditioned rooms are common sense for any large gatherings. 

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

The RAVE Act expands an already problematic law while lowering the standard 

of proof needed to punish people. It will chill free speech and make our youth worse 

off. It is so flawed that the best thing to do is reject this law altogether, allowing 

all interested parties to come together to build more constructive approaches. Short 

of tabling this bill, there are a number of amendments that would greatly improve 

the bill.

• The RAVE Act should be amended to ensure that the term ‘‘For the specific 

purpose of’’ relates to the intent of the manager or controller of the location 

and not to the intent of patrons or attendees.

• The civil provisions (Section 3) should be removed. If not removed, it should 

be amended to provide a conviction before civil penalties can be applied.

• An amendment should be added staking out what business owners can do to 

prevent being prosecuted under this law (a ‘‘safe harbor’’ provision) and declaring that business owners should only be punished for illegal activity, not 

legal activity. Such an amendment is essential to protecting free speech, public health, and innocent business owners.

• The RAVE Act should be amended to ensure that substance abusers do not 

receive twenty years in federal prison for using drugs. Essentially, the word 

‘‘use’’ needs to be dropped from the bill’s addition of ‘‘lease, rent, use’’. Under 

the current RAVE Act, any one who uses any place (their apartment, motel 

room, park) to use an illegal drug could potentially be subject to 20 years in 

jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Federal law already provides for 

punishment of drug users. The RAVE Act would enact penalties out of line 

with the actual offenses.

• The addition of the word ‘‘temporary’’ to the crack house law should be removed. This addition fundamentally changes the nature of the law from one 

meant to target property that was being used primarily for drug offenses to 

one that makes property owners liable for isolated actions that occur on their 

25

property, whether they are there or not. It is also one of the additions to the 

crack house law that will do the most damage to the First Amendment, by 

chilling property owners from allowing events based on the kind of music or 

expression taking place. 

CONCLUSION

The RAVE Act is overly broad, targets innocent business owners, and endangers 

the health of our youth by driving raves and other events underground. 

The RAVE Act is also unnecessary. The federal government already has the ability under existing law to prosecute music promoters, nightclub owners or their employees who sell or distribute drugs. Prosecutors are already using the existing 

‘‘crack house statute’’ to target nightclub owners and rave promoters that fall into 

this category. 

We all want to protect our children, but it is essential that we find solutions that 

really work to keep our children safe. Enacting legislation such as the RAVE Act 

that does more harm than good is a step in the wrong direction and only puts the 

safety of our children in jeopardy.

26

EXHIBIT A

‘‘Information Bulletin on Raves’’ by the U.S. Department of Justice, April 2001


Infobul1.eps
27


Infobul2.eps
28


Infobul3.eps
29


Infobul4.eps
30


Infobul5.eps
31


Infobul6.eps
32

EXHIBIT B

‘‘Transcript of Permanent Injunction Hearing’’ in McClure v. Ashcroft,

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana, December 17, 2001


Boyd1.eps
33


Boyd2.eps
34


Boyd3.eps
35


Boyd4.eps
36


Boyd5.eps
37


Boyd6.eps
38


Boyd7.eps
39


Boyd8.eps
40


Boyd9.eps
41


Boyd10.eps
42


Boyd11.eps
43


Boyd12.eps
44


Boyd13.eps
45


Boyd14.eps
46


Boyd15.eps
47


Boyd16.eps
48


Boyd17.eps
49


Boyd18.eps
50


Boyd19.eps
51


Boyd20.eps
52


Boyd21.eps
53


Boyd22.eps
54

Mr. SMITH. Let me address my first couple of questions to Mr. 

Hutchinson. And just to follow up on some of the statements we 

just heard, Mr. Hutchinson, I wanted to ask you to respond to 

these statements. First is that the language of the bill makes legitimate innocent businesses potential targets for a phony charge if 

the nature of their business makes it impossible to guarantee that 

no drug use will occur on their property. Would you respond to that 

assertion? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that is certainly, I think, the purpose of the legislation called the RAVE Act 

that is being introduced before this Committee. If you look at that 

legislation, there is a very important requirement in there that 

there is a burden of proof to establish any wrongdoing on the part 

of a property owner or user of property, and that is that they knowingly use or maintain the property for the purposes of unlawful distribution of drugs. And that ‘‘knowing’’ requirement in there is typical, whether it is the mail fraud statute that sets a burden of proof 

of knowing conduct, or a whole host of other criminal statutes. 

So it is typical of criminal statutes to put a culpability burden 

of proof in there and in this case it is knowing. So it would be impossible to convict an innocent property owner or an innocent user 

of property that has no knowledge of the drug use that might take 

place on the property. 

And so to argue that, well, this could be used to go after any concert promoter because there might accidentally be drug use there, 

is totally fallacious. It only goes after those people who knowingly 

use the property for drug use and promotion. 

Mr. SMITH. One other statement, if you will respond to this, and 

I thank you for that answer. Rather than eliminating drug use or 

even entirely eliminating Raves, the bill would drive Raves underground and discourage basic health precautions. It would have a 

perverse effect and make drug use more dangerous. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I don’t think the intent of the legislation, at 

least my reading of the legislation or the conduct of law enforcement, is to eliminate all Raves. I think the purpose is to make sure 

that if there is a venue for music, that the promoter of that does 

not facilitate and encourage and knowingly allow for drug use on 

the property. And that is what I understand would be the intent 

of the legislation and certainly the intent of law enforcement. 

In regard to what would be the impact of aggressive pursuit of 

that connection and that wrong conduct would be to discourage Ecstasy distribution and criminal conduct. And I think that is the impact of it. And actually I think there has been a significant change 

in the last couple of years. I noticed here in Washington, D.C. A 

significant operation really was canceled because of the extensive 

drug use that was there and the promoter shut it down. So I think 

there has been some progress made in this whole endeavor. 

Mr. SMITH. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson. 

Ms. Craparotta, I would like to ask you a question in regard to 

the statement in your testimony when you said that Ecstasy has 

emerged as a favorite among today’s youth. Explain a little bit 

more why you think that is the case. What are the dangers? 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. Many of today’s youth look at this drug as almost the perfect drug. It causes very little hangover the next day. 

55

These men and young women come home, they don’t smell of alcohol. It is very hard to tell that someone has been using Ecstasy the 

day after, or even later on. It is as easy to buy as candy. It is everywhere. It looks like something you would want to ingest. There 

is nothing ominous about an Ecstasy pill. And because it causes 

them to dance and hug, it has this whole love-drug type effect, I 

just believe that they are not thinking in terms of what damage it 

is causing to their brains at the time. They are thinking of this in 

terms of how much fun they are having when they are on it. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. Kreamer, you mentioned in your testimony—and I thought 

this was interesting—the media is conflicted in their reporting on 

Ecstasy and their messages. Is that to say the media is not helpful 

in trying to eliminate the use of the drug? Or what do you mean 

by the media is conflicted? 

Ms. KREAMER. They are not helpful in most situations. Sometimes it is presented under the guise that we need to present both 

sides. A little more than a year ago, they did a special and they 

featured DanceSafe. And by the time you were done watching the 

program, you thought that DanceSafe, if they were there they 

would assure you that this drug was safe to use. 

That is certainly the wrong impression we want to give young 

people. If there was good information out there and if there was 

strong leadership, I believe that what the media would then be reporting would be that information. I don’t see that leadership coming forth right now with that strong information. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Kreamer. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boyd, we presently have crack house legislation in most 

States. How does this bill differ from someone running a drug 

house? 

Mr. BOYD. Well, I think what is different about this bill, and 

really also about the enforcement strategy currently of the DEA 

against Raves, is that it makes it weak, from going after people 

who are directly involved in drugs to those who aren’t. And in my 

testimony I have a footnote that lists every single Federal crack 

house case that has ever happened. All of them, every single one 

of them, involve people who were dealing drugs, who hired drug 

dealers, who were handling the drugs, who were making money 

from the drugs. I am not criticizing that. I think most of the horror 

stories you hear about Raves would also be covered by those existing laws. 

What the law does not adequately cover according to the proponents of this bill are those situations where someone is not involved in it. 

Mr. BOYD. And I think that examination of the knowing element 

that Mr. Hutchinson made reference to is very important. It says 

you have to knowingly make the property available. That is, the 

knowledge element is making the property available; you didn’t accidentally let people in. But for the purpose of using drugs, it is the 

concert attendee’s purpose that matters. It is not that the proprietor meant to use drugs. 

56

Mr. SCOTT. Let me let Mr. Hutchinson respond because it seems 

though if someone is actually dealing the drugs, they are already 

guilty under other statutes. Who are we covering that is not already—who is not involved in dealing drugs? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think that if you look at the crack house statute as to how it has been used and crafted, it makes it a little bit 

more workable to go after a property owner or renter who is not 

directly distributing drugs but knowingly facilitates the distribution of drugs in that particular piece of property. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is the knowing part that Mr. Boyd was talking 

about. You knowingly rented the property. Did you have to know 

that they are going to use it for the purpose of drug use? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I am looking at the crack house statute. 

And it says: It shall be unlawful to knowingly open or maintain 

any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using 

any controlled substance. 

That is pretty clear. 

Mr. SCOTT. This bill where you are going after the owner, the 

RAVE bill—. Mr. HUTCHINSON. The RAVE bill simply amends that particular 

section that I just read to add, inserting, ‘‘open, lease, rent, use, or 

maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily.’’ . 

So you still have the knowingly requirement for using or maintaining a place for the distribution of drugs. So you still have that 

heavy burden of proof. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you can prove that they are using a place for the 

purpose of manufacturing or distributing drugs, why can’t you get 

them convicted under the present statute? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You might have to talk to some United States 

attorneys on that. But it is my understanding that it would be a 

little bit more difficult to bring them in. The only theory would be 

a conspiracy, conspiracy to distribute drugs. And here the burden 

is that you facilitated the distribution of those drugs by the knowing maintenance of a particular piece of property. So it is a little 

bit different standard. Of course, the one big difference in the legislation proposed or introduced is it allows for civil penalties, which 

certainly is an added tool that can be used. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think Mr. Boyd would probably think that is not a 

good thing. 

Mr. BOYD. I also just want the Members to be aware that the 

courts have interpreted the existing crack house statute consistently with the position I am taking. This isn’t something I am making up. I would refer you to the case of U.S. v. Tamez, in which 

the court said, quote: The person who manages or controls the 

building and then rents it to another need not have the express 

purpose in doing so that drug-related activity is engaged in by others; i.e., others have that purpose. 

That is a frightening interpretation of the law, and the only saving grace of this statute historically that it has always been applied 

in the context where the person was actually a drug dealer until 

the State Palace case, and now by introducing a law calling it the 

RAVE Act, which seems to want to codify the State Palace approach. It is saying let’s don’t focus just on the drug dealers; let’s 

expand it and let’s do it with civil asset forfeiture laws that don’t 

57

even have the procedural protections that otherwise exist. It is a 

very frightening and broad proposition. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Scott is recognized for an additional question. I 

also want to say to my colleagues and witnesses, I am going to 

have to excuse myself. When I leave I will turn over the gavel to 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, and appreciate his sitting in 

as Chairman. Mr. Scott continues to be recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Craparotta, if the drugs are being dealt openly, 

why is there a problem in dealing directly with the drug use? That 

is to say, people going there, buying drugs. You can have reverse— do you go after the people who are buying drugs as well as those 

that are selling them? 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. For the most part, we are taking off the users 

and then in the end of these operations we are then rounding up 

the dealers. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how long do these things stay in operation before 

you decide to start arresting people? 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. In a case like this, we commenced the operation on Memorial weekend and we ended Labor Day weekend. So 

we took it through the entire summer. 

Mr. SCOTT. Before you arrested people? 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. Before we arrested the dealers. Because we 

had a team of undercovers in there. You would lose your undercover operatives’ ability to work under cover if you were constantly 

arresting people as buys were being made. 

Mr. SCOTT. I would think that people would stop showing up if 

they knew that the undercover agents were there arresting people 

on the first day. 

Ms. CRAPAROTTA. They won’t stop showing up. There is always 

another dealer waiting in the wings. 

Mr. CHABOT. [Presiding.] The gentleman’s time has expired. Before I recognize the next member of the panel for questions, I 

would like to publicly recognize and thank Mr. Hutchinson for his 

leadership at the DEA. I have heard nothing but good things from 

all my sources over there, and particularly at a recent announcement where you had a major crackdown on those that were trying 

to pervade the date rape drugs over the Internet. And I was very 

impressed with the work that had gone into that. I just wanted to 

publicly thank you, Asa, for your leadership. It is much needed and 

much appreciated. 

I would next like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff, for the purpose of asking questions for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask a question, 

Mr. Boyd, and one of Mr. Hutchinson as well. Mr. Boyd, as I read 

the language in the statute, it requires the prosecution to prove 

that the defendant leased the property, owned it, et cetera, knowingly and intentionally for the purpose of unlawful manufacturing, 

storage, distributing, or using a controlling substance. 

So there are two requirements: that you have to ‘‘knowingly and 

intentionally,’’ which is stronger than just saying ‘‘knowingly,’’ and 

for the purpose of this illicit use. 

As a former assistant U.S. attorney, I would feel if I were going 

to prosecute anyone with that, I would need to be able to prove, 

number one, that it was done knowingly and intentionally, not by 

58

accident, not without knowledge of what was going to go on there, 

and it would have to be for the purpose of this illicit drug manufacture, possession, use et cetera. 

So if I had a defendant or a target of an investigation and all 

I could show was that they rented the premises, a warehouse, a 

field or whatever, and that they had some inkling that someone 

there might use drugs, even though it was not their design, that 

would not be sufficient to charge them. And I want to see if your 

interpretation of that is different. That is one question. 

The other question is, why not use civil liability? It seems to me 

this bill might be the civil liability. If that is where the profit is, 

in the rent or the use of the premises, it seems like that might be 

an effective way to go after it. 

And the question I would like to pose to Mr. Hutchinson is not 

unlike what Bobby Scott asked, and that is: What is it that present 

law does not allow you to do? The crack house laws, the conspiracy 

laws, are they not on point so that basically if you had someone 

who is leasing their premises or allowing it and knowingly allowing 

it to be used for this purpose, do the current laws not permit to 

you go after that? Are there elements that you have to prove under 

current law that you would otherwise not have to prove under this 

law? 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. To answer your first question 

concerning your purpose, the Fifth Circuit and Ninth Circuit have 

already interpreted the language contrary to the way that you 

would read it. I wish that they did read it the way you suggested, 

and that is why we have proposed as an amendment that you make 

clear that the criminal defendant be the one who has the purpose 

of the illegal activity. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Those circuits have interpreted it to mean that you 

just have to knowingly be renting it to someone and they have—

the one you rent it to has to intend to use it for the illicit purpose, 

but you don’t have to know of that purpose? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir, that is correct. And it is extraordinary. I 

imagine you are feeling a bit surprised about that. That is why I 

say that despite that sort of extraordinary breadth, the reason the 

statute has not been problematic is because of the charging discretion of the U.S. attorneys around the country where they have gone 

after people who, in fact, have known of the purpose, have had the 

purpose, in fact, were dealing drugs themselves. 

That was true until they sort of stretched this law or utilized this 

law to go after Raves in New Orleans. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentleman from California—. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Do you have the same interpretation of what those 

two circuits have done? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am not familiar with that particular Ninth 

Circuit case that has been referenced by Mr. Boyd. I would be flabbergasted if that is the majority opinion. To me the language of the 

statute is clear that ‘‘knowingly’’ is a requirement; not just that you 

knowingly leased the property, but that you have knowledge or in 

somehow knowingly facilitate the distribution of drugs there. That 

to me is what the reading of the statute is. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would yield. 

59

Mr. SCOTT. If you can give us a list of all of those cases, we 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. BOYD. Certainly. The first is the Tamez case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Afterwards. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Hutchinson, can you comment on what current 

law precludes you from doing or why the tools that are out there 

are insufficient and why this would—. Mr. HUTCHINSON. The proposed legislation, as you pointed out, 

adds the civil penalty, which is a—could be a very effective tool, 

short of criminal prosecution, but still a substantial burden of proof 

in order to go after the unlawful promoters that are really promoting drug use. So that civil penalty is a very significant step. 

Secondly, the language that is used in the proposed legislation 

expands what could be included for the use of property by adding 

‘‘open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily.’’ and so the ‘‘temporarily’’ is significant because it could be a one-night rental that I am not sure would be 

included in the original crack house statute. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady 

from Texas is recognized. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman. And let me just say 

the—I know the bell has rung on the floor of the House. Let me 

make some comments. I understand we may have some time on 

this legislation because I have a sense of unreadiness. But as I do 

that, might I say to the panelists, we have a gentleman who has 

been known himself to fight against the illegal use of drugs in the 

room. I would like to acknowledge Pat Boone is here. I am going 

to be visiting with him in just a moment. And I appreciate his presence here in the room. And thank you. 

Let me just quickly say I took about 3 years to pass legislation 

on the GHB date rape drug. I thought it was extremely important. 

I think the Administrator was on the committee at that time. We 

have spent some time in Houston dealing with these issues. What 

troubles me is that I think it is important that we balance the fight 

against drugs. The Rave is a—Rave parties is a situation I am very 

familiar with, because when we did our GHB date rape drug, the 

Rave drugs were the underpinnings of it. But I do think we have 

an opportunity to look at this legislation in the face of questions 

being raised about whether you knowingly or unknowingly; whether you will be able to decipher that. 

I am thinking particularly of senior citizens who have rental 

property and who, of course, may have no knowledge but there may 

be some suggestion that the grandson is the manager of the property, and does that attribute notice and knowledge to that senior 

citizen who just has ownership and the grandson may be engaged? 

And I think that is a concern that I have. 

Mr. Hutchinson, do you want to briefly comment on that potential? 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is an important potential to eliminate. 

And I compliment the leadership of this Committee on looking at 

these, the language very carefully; and you, Ms. Jackson Lee particularly. 

But I think what is important in the both the crack house statute and this proposed legislation is the burden of proof of ‘‘knowVerDate Jan 17 2002 14:41 Nov 25, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\101002\82263.000 HJUD1 PsN: 82263
60

ingly.’’ and therefore you are going to avoid the innocent owner. In 

fact I was looking at the jury instruction coming over here that a 

jury would be given, and it would advise the jury that an act is 

done knowingly only if it is done purposely and deliberately and 

not because of mistake, accident, negligence, or other innocent reason. And that is an important part of the definition of ‘‘knowingly.’’ . Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me conclude by simply saying—and I am 

going to yield back and end with that language, and Mr. Boyd I 

will be looking forward to the case law that you have—let me say 

to the other witnesses I appreciate—you have my advocacy on the 

issues of fighting against drugs in young people, but I would like 

to see the cases and offer an amendment that delineates specifically some of these persons that may be innocent third parties, that 

I want to delineate clearly that they would not be subject to prosecution because of their innocence. Because we will continue to 

work on this legislation. 

I yield back Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, I thank the gentlelady for yielding 

back. 

If there is no further business to come before the Committee we 

would like to thank the panel for their testimony here. And any 

Members that might not have had the opportunity to hear it in 

person will have the opportunity to read the testimony. So thank 

you for your testimony this afternoon. If there are no further questions this Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

First of all, any time we lose young people it is a tragedy and that is why this 

bill is so particularly important to Texans and many others in this country. I point 

out that I have a history of being tough on the use of Ecstasy (or GHB). I have sponsored legislation to crack down on the used of the date rape drug. However, I do 

have concerns about the bill before the Subcommittee today. 

GHB, has been used in innumerable rapes around the country and has been implicated in at least 40 deaths. This drug is very popular on the party scene in many 

cities and it is widely abused. In my home city of Houston, GHB has become the 

rage at some Houston area clubs where it is clandestinely being dispensed by party 

goers in clear liquid form from designer water bottles. This drug which goes by the 

names of ‘‘easy lay,’’ ‘‘grievous bodily harm,’’ ‘‘gook,’’ ‘‘Gamma 10,’’ and ‘‘liquid X’’

cannot be detected with a routine drug screen. That is why the deaths of so many 

of the victims have remained a mystery. 

I was prompted to act to control the illicit use of GHB 3 years ago because of the 

death of Hillory J. Farias of La Porte, Texas, on August 5, 1996, who was killed 

by this drug. As most of you know I was the sponsor of the Hillary J. Farias Date 

Rape Prevention Act which passed this House. 

Hillory J. Farias was a 17-year-old high school student, model student and varsity 

volleyball player, who died as a result of GHB slipped in her soft drink. It was at 

this time that her family refused to believe that she died of a self-induced drug overdose, and in their persistence they had the new Harris County medical center, Dr. 

Joy Carter, to again retest or reexamine and determine the death or the reason of 

the death of Hillory J. Farias. 

Her family now, Lydia Farias, her grandmother; and Ray Farias, her grandfather; 

Rubin Farias, her uncle; Rosey Farias, her mother; and Hernando Farias, her uncle 

have gathered throughout these 3 years to persist in finding some truth to what 

happened to Hillory but also to help pass this legislation so that it could not happen 

to others again. 

Hillory and two of her girlfriends went out to a club where they consumed only 

soft drinks. At some point during the evening, GHB was slipped into Hillory’s drink 

and soon afterwards Hillory complained of feeling sick with a severe headache. She 

went home to bed, but the next morning Hillory was found by her grandmother unconscious and unresponsive. Hillory was rushed to the hospital where she later died. 

The cause of Hillory’s death remained a mystery until it was finally detected by 

medical examiners, in this instance Dr. Joy Carter, as I indicated, after receiving 

a report from the Harris County Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force about 

a new date-rape drug that was starting to show up in area nightclubs. 

The Houston Poison Control reports consistently indicate that a significant number of young people overdose on the drug and been treated in emergency rooms in 

the past 6 months. In fact, Mike Ellis, director of poison control, stated in 1996, that 

the majority of cases that this agency has been seeing over the past few years have 

resulted from people rushed to the hospitals because they could not breath or they 

passed out in their cars and nobody could rouse them. 

A young man from the Chicago area overdosed and almost died last September 

of 1999. His family called our office pleading for help. There was also a recent incident in Michigan where four teenagers died. One Houston, Texas, resident by the 

name of Craig told the media officials that the use of the drug is rampant. 

These tragedies underscore the importance of this legislation. However, this legislation before us raises concerrns. The RAVE Act is overly broad, targets innocent 

62

business owners, and endangers the health of our youth by driving raves and other 

events underground. 

The RAVE Act needs further study. The federal government already has the ability under existing law to prosecute music promoters, nightclub owners or their employees who sell or distribute drugs. Prosecutors are already using the existing 

‘‘crack house statute’’ to target nightclub owners and rave promoters that fall into 

this category. 

We all want to protect our children, but it is essential that we find solutions that 

really work to keep our children safe. Enacting legislation such as the RAVE Act 

without further assessment to balance the great need to protect our children against 

protections of property owners, such as some elderly person who may have innocently rented property that was used improperly seems premature. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. I look forward to working with the Committee to solve the ongoing problem of drug use.

Æ