Tha Mechanix Workshop     |   home
EZTest Info   |   Info on PMA   |   M.A.P. Studies MDMA Neurotoxicity Analysis   |   History of MDMA and MDA   |   MDMA or Not?   |   List and effects of MDMA related family of drugs:   |   Search and Seizure   |   Pillpolice   |   Ecstasy and the Brain   |   About Ecstasy   |   MDMA EZ2-Understand   |   5HTP info
Pillpolice

SF Bay Guardian: Pill police
By Amanda Nowinski

WALKING THOUGH THE front entrance of 850 Bryant, the Hall of Justice, is no big deal. You simply pass through a metal detector, and the weary security guard casually checks the insides of your bags. Last week this struck me as particularly significant. I was there to report on public defender Sujung Kim's case in which she alleges that the private security guards at South of Market nightclub Ten 15 Folsom are acting as agents of the state. This argument is based on a stipulated injunction that the city issued the club in May, which mandates the club to search and detain drug-holding patrons at the door and then inside if provoked by probable cause. In other words, the city is forcing the club to do something even police officers aren't allowed to do. Kim, whose client was arrested at the nightclub on May 28 on charges of possession of ecstasy, argues that the nightclub's security "should be held to the same standards that government and law enforcement officials are held to under the Fourth Amendment, as they are performing a function that is traditionally held by law enforcement." You don't get frisked walking into the main entrance to jail, but you do before entering a nightclub that has zero history of violence. Where's the logic?

And she has some weighty support. "I don't think these could be considered to be private actions anymore," Alan Schlosser, managing attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, told us in August. "These searches are clearly the result of state action. The fact that this is an injunction approved and signed by a court puts the seal of the state on this. To the degree that the searches are going beyond constitutional bounds, challenges should be raised."

The trial was set for early October, but when Kim put Ten 15 Folsom's lawyer, Joe Wood, on the stand a few weeks ago, district attorney Rani Singh realized this case is much larger than a simple drug violation; hence, she wouldn't let Kim get a word in, and the case was continued twice, and is now scheduled for Nov. 30. "They didn't know what the hell was going on the first time," Kim said. "I don't know when they found out about the injunction, but I don't think they understood the history of it."

Clearly this case has far-reaching implications. If Kim wins this case and takes it to Superior Court, the verdict will affect how private security guards search patrons in nightclubs and beyond. "This is definitely a landmark case in San Francisco, and maybe even in state of California," Kim said. "No case has been litigated with exactly these facts."

The case could also change the way police handle the issuing of operating permits, a tactic that was criticized by May's civil grand jury report, which stated, "While the desire of the police to reduce problems related to clubs is laudable, the role of the police is to protect the public and preserve the peace, not to set public policy on the hours that businesses are permitted to remain open." The San Francisco Late Night Coalition, Sup. Mark Leno, and even Police Chief Fred Lau agree that the police department shouldn't be in charge of deciding which night clubs get permits. In its current form, the police department has complete discretion over everything from determining who deserves operating and after hours permits to deciding whether patrons are allowed to dance.

The city is forcing Ten 15 Folsom to treat clubgoers more criminally than criminals themselves and is trying to fuck up a perfectly legitimate business: a nightclub that has always been the tightest run in town.

To make matters worse, earlier this month President Bill Clinton signed off on the frightening Methamphetamine and Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000. The law ups the punishment for meth and ecstasy, and as its name suggests, clubs and raves are still the stereotyped focus of the Drug Enforcement Administration's drug du jour criminal watch. This is yet another reason to keep pills far away from nightclubs and raves: You never know who's watching you now.

911 rent

Last week's hearing before the Finance and Labor Committee to approve Sup. Tom Ammiano's rent subsidy ordinance – $1.5 million in emergency funds for art orgs facing monstrous rents – was, for once, like preaching to the converted. The usually long, impassioned speeches were unnecessary to sway the supervisors, and Ammiano even cracked a few lighthearted jokes and tried to get things moving. Regardless, artists got up and dutifully did their part. And best of all, the proposition passed unanimously through the full Board of Supervisors on Monday. Is city hall finally waking up?

http://sfbg.com/AandE/35/05/artnews.html