Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2003-07-31/html/CREC-2003-07-31-pt2-PgS10605-2.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:10:17+00:00

Document:
on guard duty at a propane distribution center.
F.E. Warren Air Force Base.
who give everything to secure the peace.
to his country and his fellow Americans.
bring a passion for drug policy to the job.
International Union of Police Associations.
the drug issue on the national agenda.
making them look like new agents when they are not.
The magnitude of the gap left by the FBI is quite troubling.
prosecute rogue rave promoters who profit off of putting kids at risk.
illicit drug use and protect kids.
distribution. That is quite a high bar.
from various groups that the new law has stifled free speech.
anywhere close to violating that high legal standard.
offices shortly after the bill was signed into law.
simply based upon or just because of illegal patron behavior.
`knowledge' and `intent' were not changed by the [new] Act.
agents on the proper legal interpretation.
property. Both charges are wrong, as I will now explain.
nightclub, a retail business, or a storage barn.'' [United States v.
F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Bilis, 170 F.3d 88 (1st Cir.
States v. Tamez, 941 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v.
dealer to do so on their property, they should be held accountable.
venue for others to engage in illicit drug activity.
of the statute many critics now assert will result from my law.
to believe that drug use might occur.
illicit drug activity. Actual knowledge is still the standard today.
principal uses to which the house is put. United States v.
Verners, 53 F.3d 291, 296 (10th Cir. 1995).
home,'' [United States v. Lancaster, 968 F.2d 1250, 1253 (D.C. Cir.
burden of proof to make sure that innocent actors don't get prosecuted.
purpose of selling drugs, you are off the hook.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.