BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Bill No: AB
74
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Roderick D. Wright, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
Bill Analysis
AB 74 Author: Ma
As Amended: May 11, 2011
Hearing Date: June 28, 2011
Consultant: Paul Donahue
SUBJECT : Public events; Action plans
SUMMARY : Requires any state agency holding an event with
expected attendance over 10,000 to conduct a threat
assessment, as specified.
Existing law : Generally authorizes state agencies,
including district agricultural associations, to allow
private individual or corporations to hold events on state
property.
This bill :
1) Requires state agencies, including district agricultural
associations and any joint powers authorities that include
a district agricultural association (i.e., the LA Memorial
Coliseum Commission) to conduct a threat assessment at a
regularly scheduled meeting at least 30 days prior to an
event that is expected to draw over 10,000 people.
2) Specifies that the threat assessment shall consider,
among others, the following topics:
a) Prior events held by the promoter.
b) Prior events held at the facility.
c) Similar types of events in general.
d) The potential need for law enforcement and onsite
medical care.
AB 74 (Ma) continued
PageB
e) The potential for drug use and distribution.
3) Requires the event promoter to develop an event action
plan if the state agency determines there is a strong
probability that loss of life or harm to participants could
occur.
4) Provides that the promoter shall not hold the event
until the state agency approves the event action plan.
5) Requires the event action plan to consider:
a) Health and safety concerns - whether the promoter
should provide free water, prohibit minors from
attending, or provide onsite medical care.
b) Law enforcement concerns - if there is a reasonable
ratio of peace officers or security guards to event
attendees, and mechanisms for control of drug use and
trafficking.
c) The potential need to supply educational pamphlets
or other relevant emergency materials, such as first
aid, to help alleviate risk.
6) Specifies that if the event places performers at risk,
such as a rodeo or monster truck rally, the event action
plan is not required to address that risk.
7) Exempts gun shows from the requirements of this
legislation.
COMMENTS :
Rationale : According to the author, a growing number of
drug-related young adult and teen deaths, hospitalizations,
and arrests have occurred as the result of late or
all-night dance parties (also known as raves) in
California, many held on state-owned property.
The author states that, according to the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA), many young adults and teenagers
attending raves and all-night dance parties are using "club
AB 74 (Ma) continued
PageC
drugs" such as Ecstasy,<1> LSD, GHB (gamma
hydroxybutyrate), ketamine, and the like. According to the
author, the NIDA and other studies demonstrate that such
drugs can pose serious health risks including death, coma,
amnesia, addiction, physical dependency and long term
problems.
The author notes that in the last year, there have been
several high profile deaths at raves in California,
including the death of a 15-year-old in Los Angeles. At
two events where deaths occurred, the Cow Palace and the LA
Coliseum, there were also 125 hospitalizations. While both
the Cow Place and the LA Coliseum had placed moratoriums on
raves and rave-like events, the LA Coliseum rescinded its
moratorium last fall.
Possible issues raised by this bill :
1) Ecstasy : Among other things, the death of Sasha
Rodriguez, a 15-year old girl who attended the June 2010
Electric Daisy Carnival at the Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum prompted the introduction of this bill.<2> The
young girl died of an apparent overdose of Ecstasy, which,
according to the Los Angeles Times "draws attention to
-------------------------
<1> Ecstasy is also known as MDMA, which is shorthand for
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
<2> E.g., on May 11, 2011, SECTION 1 of AB 74 was amended
in the Assembly, stating, "Ýt]his act shall be known and
may be cited as either the Concert and Music Festival
Safety Act or Sasha's law." In addition, AB 74 requires an
event action plan to consider such health concerns as
"whether the promoter should provide free water." Use of
Ecstasy can cause extreme thirst; however, drinking excess
water is one of the mechanisms of mortality in Ecstasy
overdose cases because blood dilution from excess water
intake can interfere with the sodium-potassium bridge that
is essential to functioning of the central nervous system.
AB 74 (Ma) continued
PageD
connection between raves and Ecstasy."<3> The Times article
contends that "the connection between drug use and raves -
massive dance parties that feature electronic music and
sometimes last 12 hours - is well-documented. Some who
attend consider the use of Ecstasy integral to the
experience...."
Although recent national data<4> indicate that Ecstasy use
has been falling or flat since 2001, the Times article
suggests that it is on the rise in Los Angeles County: "In
2005, 4.5 of every 10,000 people entering treatment for
substance abuse in Los Angeles County said Ecstasy was
their primary drug of choice. By 2009, it was 33.6 - more
than seven times as many." The increase in use of Ecstasy
among people entering treatment for drug abuse is an
increase of over 600% over 5 years, but that means use went
from 0.045% to 0.336%.
A strong argument can be made that this small increase in
the use of Ecstasy does not qualify as an epidemic
mandating that promoters of concerts and music festivals in
public forums prepare formal event plans in order to get an
event permit.
2) Federal anti-RAVE statute : In 2003, President Bush
signed then-Senator Joe Biden's Illicit Drug
Anti-Proliferation Act, which was a renamed version of the
Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act
that had failed passage in Congress the year before.
Among other things, the Act prohibits "knowingly opening,
maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing,
making available for use, or profiting from any place for
the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any
controlled substance." Violators are subject to $250,000
or more in civil penalties, a criminal fine of up to
$500,000, and a prison sentence of up to 20 years. The
existence of this strict federal law raises a question
concerning the need for additional state restrictions on
events in state public forums.
-------------------------
<3> Death at Electric Daisy Carnival draws attention to
connection between raves and Ecstasy, Los Angeles Times,
July 5, 2010, at
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/05/local/la-me-rave-ecs
tasy-20100705
<4> See, e.g., National Survey on Drug Use and Health, US
Dept. of Health & Human Services, at
http://oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh.htm
AB 74 (Ma) continued
PageE
3) Liability : The author contends that California lacks
statewide public safety standards for high-risk events held
on state property, yet the state remains accountable and
subject to liability claims when incidents occur. The
author states that this bill helps the state address the
issues facing high-risk events held on state property,
while not banning or discriminating against any event.
Enactment of statutory requirements for state officials to
conduct threat assessments and to approve promoter event
action plans would not diminish appreciably the state's
exposure in personal injury litigation in the event of
incidents arising from the events contemplated in the
action plans.
Moreover, the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) recently adopted best practices for use by the
network of California fairs. According to its cover letter
accompanying the guidelines, CDFA compiled them "in an
attempt to minimize risk and unnecessary Ýliability]
exposure to fairs and their respective communities."
The Committee may wish to consider whether the CDFA
guidelines obviate the need for a statutory mandate that
fairs conduct threat assessments prior to concert events.
4) Special requirements on musical events : Some courts have
looked unfavorably on imposition of special requirements on
specific musical events. For example, in Cinevision Corp.
v. City of Burbank (9th Cir. 1984) 745 F.2d 560, the court
found among other things that:
"ÝA] general fear that state or local narcotics or
other laws will be broken by people attending the
concerts cannot justify a content-based restriction on
expression. See, e.g., Southeastern Promotions, Ltd.
v. Conrad (1975) 420 U.S. 546; Gay Students
Organization v. Bonner (1st Cir. 1974) 509 F.2d 652.
'In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension
of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to
freedom of expression.' Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969) 393 U.S.
503. Normally, law enforcement officers can deal
adequately and effectively with unlawful activity of
that nature at the time it occurs. That is a proper
AB 74 (Ma) continued
PageF
exercise of the police power; censorship is not. Even
if the performers planned to advocate unlawful,
subversive activities, which the City has not alleged
here, that expression could only be suppressed if it
were directed at producing, and were likely to
produce, imminent lawless action. See, e.g.,
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444."
5) Related legislation :
AB 1941 (Havice, 2001) would have established requirements
for issuing a local permit for a "rave party," defined as
an electronic music dance event at which 500 or more
persons may attend. (Failed passage in Senate Public Safety
Committee)
AB 1714 (Soto, 1999) would have required a business or
person that conducts concerts at a facility that meets
certain criteria to, among other things, have onsite an
emergency medical technician during the entire concert
performance, while any attendees are present, and have a
first aid center that can accommodate up to 10 people at a
time for purposes of providing first aid. (Hearing
cancelled by author)
SUPPORT:
San Mateo County Police Chiefs' & Sheriff's Association
California Medical Association
OPPOSE: None on file
DOUBLE REFERRAL : Senate Public Safety Committee
FISCAL COMMITTEE: Senate Appropriations
**********