Lots to write about, but it’s all too long. Maybe I just shouldn’t explain and just provide links. Naw.

In an especially sneaky move, the Rave Act has been reintroduced in Congress. Under another name. Buried in S. 22, a popular omnibus domestic security bill proposed by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle. So what, you don’t go to raves, right? Somehow it has become my responsibility to make sure that tenants living on my property don’t do drugs. Of course it would be an illegal invasion of privacy for me to try to find out if they’rebreaking the law;they are entitled to their privacy and I can’t just show up at their door and demand to know what they’re doing.

Here is one take on this portion of the bill:

The RAVE Act unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers. The federal government can’t even keep drugs out of its own schools and prisons, yet it seeks to punish business owners for failing to keep people from carrying drugs onto their property. It is a danger to innocent businessmen and women, especially restaurant and nightclub owners, concert promoters, landlords, and real estate managers. Section 4 of the bill goes so far as to allow the federal government to charge property owners civilly, thus allowing prosecutors to fine property owners $250,000 (and put them out of business) without having to meet the higher standard of proof in criminal cases that is needed to protect innocent people.

The “crack house” provisions would also make it a federal crime to temporarily use a place for the purpose of using any illegal drug. Thus, 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 $250,000 fine and years in federal prison. The provisions also effectively makes it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers, giving the federal government a new weapon in its war on AIDS and cancer patients that use marijuana to relieve their suffering.

For the point-by-point analysis, go here.

The name of the bill is the “Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003“. It covers everything from terrorism to a national Amber Alert system to telemarketing fraud. There ought to be a law against this type of legislation — the type that makes lawmakers look bad if they don’t support it because of some of the popular sections, but makes it easy to pass questionable things because they won’t be noticed.