Section 609, also referred to as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, is a controversial attachment to an unrelated bill. Section 609 broadly expands the federal "crackhouse statute" (21 U.S.C. 856), which prohibits opening or maintaining a building for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance. Instead of restricting the application of the "crackhouse statute" to ongoing, continuous drug operations, Section 609 expands the provisions making them applicable to temporary, one-time and outdoor events. Civil provisions have also been added which lower the burden of proof required to punish innocent business owners. This doesn't make sense. I urge you to ask President Bush to support the following changes:
It should be made clear that "for the purpose of" applies to the business owners, not the drug offenders. The way it is worded now it can be interpreted to mean that "knowingly" applies to the owner (who knowingly opens a place) and "for the purpose of" to the offender (who uses the place to commit the offense.) Both should relate to the purposeful intent of the owner (i.e. someone opens a club for the specific purpose of selling drugs in it)
"for the purpose" clauses should be modified to protect innocent business owners from being punished for the crimes of their customers. "Intentional" and/or "primary" should be added, so that it reads "for the intentional and primary purpose of."
Remove the section allowing for civil charges. If prosecutors believe people should be prosecuted, it should be done criminally. Otherwise, there should be a provision that sets the standard of proof at "clear and convincing" instead of "preponderance."
Section 609 is a controversial piece of legislation that was railroaded through the Senate and House Conference Committee, without a hearing, public notice or a debate in Congress and attached to the Child Protection Act. It is a bad idea, and I urge you not to make it worse. Among the wide-ranging priorities the Department of Justice currently faces, rigorous enforcement of the provisions in Section 609 should be among your lowest priorities. Targeting, arresting, and prosecuting innocent business owners will not solve our national drug problems. This is not the way legislation is supposed to work - where's that line item veto?
Article comments
1 - Brian Flemming
You think Bush would line-item-veto an anti-drug measure?
2 - RJ Elliott
Wasn't the Line Item Veto declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court?
3 - roger allen
just vote in november get rid of the worst president we have ever had and clean house in congress with a sweeping vote. stop whinning and vote for the sake of the country.
4 - roger allen
just vote in november get rid of the worst president we have ever had and clean house in congress with a sweeping vote. stop whinning and vote for the sake of the country.
5 - Rev Tokeval
Oh good Lord. This is absurd, how do these goons manage to do things like this? I severely doubt that signing a petition to Pope Aschroft will do any good either.
6 - A. Lee Stewart
The horror of a law holding 3rd parties criminally responsible for the acts of others is the obligation of business owners and private citizens to police their customers and guests.
That such social control legislation has even been proposed and taken seriously is proof that US drug laws have succeeded in undermining even the most basic tenant of a free people in a free society.
7 - lauren paisley
I had a dream that I lived in america, with freedoms. But I think I woke up and I am now living in some sort of socialist republic?? I want my old america back! "America wasn't founded so we could all be better people, it was founded so we could do what we damnn well please." (stolen from PJ O'Rourke, Rolling Stone Magazine) Not anymore, PJ... we have no more freedoms than the rest of the world. Aren't we supposed to be "Land of the Free???" Please vote Biden out of OUR gov't in Delaware, and please vote Lamar Smith out of OUR gov't in Texas. We cannot afford such sneaky, dangerous minds in public office.