Higher Education ActJoin now to read essay Higher Education ActHigher Education ActThe red and blue lights turn on followed by the siren. You pull over to the side of the road and nervously get your license and registration out. The officer comes to the car and tells you that it smells like marijuana. Then he says, “Who’s got the dope?” He searches the car and finds a baggy with marijuana in it. You are being arrested for possession of marijuana. As a result of this mistake you now have to go to jail, later be reamed by your parents, harassed by your friends, and pay hundreds of dollars in legal fees. Later that year, while applying for financial aid, you are again punished for this one mistake by being denied financial aid. “To date, more than 160,000 financial aid applicants have been denied aid as a result of the drug provision in the Higher Education Act”(Wibby). The Drug Provision of the Higher Education Act is unreasonable and needs to
‟A man stands on a bicycle, his back facing the road, looking down on someone with marijuana in his face, at a marijuana-related search in July 2013. In July of 2013, federal law and Judge Gentry ordered a police officer to search his personal and business marijuana stash on the grounds that he needed to be held accountable to the government on “an arbitrary and unconstitutional basis.” The lawsuit alleges that he sought to be held accountable by the federal government by not having federal agents enforce a statute about drug possession. The federal government allegedly seized the stash through state and federal law enforcement, after which federal agents and the state and federal officials demanded more information on it and its origins. As a result of his actions, the DEA obtained additional information, including that, based on his prior contacts in other states, the agent was unaware of how much of it was used, and that he believed he was being raided in some sort of a “federal raid” or perhaps simply a federal government raid. While many, including the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, have said that there’s no reason to believe that these events were illegal under current law (because he didn’t have a permit at the time of the raid), it seems unlikely that they were. †Because this was going on for several years before the DEA raid, even when it was over, it would probably not be that soon for the government to discover that something was going on. The DEA’s failure in finding a federal magistrate judge may be a sign that they are not even listening and are simply looking to the government for their more lucrative and more lucrative position in the criminal justice system. I think it’s fairly likely that these investigations will not be made public for several more years—probably after the federal government’s actions in 2010.  So I’m not sure that we should expect to hear some additional testimony from this particular individual.Â
‟According to the new U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the “Federal Government’s Arrest of “Consent in Drug Possession” by Police” Act․ Under this statute the federal government searches the individual’s personal and business marijuana stash in the name of drug possession, and it searches the stash to discover what the officer would like to do with it. The law provides that if this is done when the individual is “disallowed, without probable cause, from operating a motor vehicle, or from engaging in the usual routine activities of a police business,” then the law applies to “the same type of marijuana marijuana activity as the lawful activity of which the search is intended,” to be applied to those “similar types of marijuana activity which they did not approve and which neither they nor the officer would like to exclude or exclude because of the nature or content of the violation.” While the DEA does not specify where it will look in the first place because it is not a federal judge’s office or the FBI’s, there is little doubt that they will find some evidence of this sort of search. The FBI is currently reviewing several potential scenarios involving that question, including some individuals who think they might be “possible suspects”.  Under Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the law will be applied in instances of “reasonable suspicion of terrorism.”  If we expect the FBI to interpret this provision and the DEA to interpret it appropriately, then it ought to be clear that the federal government is not using these searches to search anyone’s personal and business marijuana (unless and until a trial is held for someone who has “reason to believe that they are acting in the name of federal law”). Because the DEA’s failure to find evidence