"If this is a strategy that saves lives ..."

They're not saving lives. They're merely postponing deaths.

Besides, is this the best use of taxpayer dollars -- saving the lives of heroin addicts? How about using that money to save the lives of innocent children from abusive parents?

And what about those who say, "Drug use only affects the user and should, therefore, be legal"? Looks like it affects the taxpayers, too, when the bleeding heart liberals get involved.

"They should put your safe spaces next to mosques."

I thought that was where they were building the new LGBT community centers.

No, I'm asking about people who have refrained from heroin use only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites.

No such animals. Heroin addicts are either pre-addicts or active addicts. There is no refraining from heroin accept through market forces(price & availability).

I guess my thought is I know progressives. Once its established they will say hey we can not have them come here and beg for money, steal or prostitute so they can get high. We must prove safe clean needles and drugs.

"Drugs are not given away (nor even sold) by safe injection site sites."

Of course not. Not right away. That's not how liberals work. Citizens would object.

But they will give away heroin when addicts become sick or die from the contaminated heroin they bring with them. Plus, they'll proclaim, free heroin at the clinic eliminates the crimes committed to purchase the heroin on the street.

That has been the experience of the heroin clinics in foreign countries. Then again, those are socialist countries, so this program fits right in.

"No, I'm asking about people who have refrained from heroin use only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites."

So you're asking if more people would use heroin if it was safer to use. Sure they would.

"However, several sources indicate an increase in new, young users across the country who are being lured by inexpensive, high-purity heroin that can be sniffed or smoked instead of injected."

You knew that, right? Yet you asked the question anyways. Typical troll.

[Article] Legalize it and take the profit motive out for the pusher man.

Yeah, treat it like it was a mob racket. They took the numbers racket and turned it into a government program to benefit education. They can turn the pushers into government civil service workers and tax the stuff to assist with Obamacare. They can even have Obamacare provide free counseling for parents whose child turns of age and has a legal right to go to the government shooting gallery. The parent cannot intervene without violating the addict's right to use heroin.

Of course, the government facility must ensure the quality of the smack or face liability claims, so it will have to step in and regulate the manufacturing and distribution of the stuff. And before we know it, the junkies will buy their government approved smack with their EBT card, paid for by the taxpayer. Because everyone has a right to free college, free health care, and free heroin.

What jobs are heroin addicts eligible to have, and capable of keeping? How do they make the money to support their habit?

Does the right to use, and be addicted to heroin, come with a free house and food?

Does an addict's right to use heroin extend to a pregnant woman shooting up at a government-sponsored "safe" injection site?

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48095&Disp=7#C7

[ConservingFreedom #7] Drugs are not given away (nor even sold) by safe injection sites.

How is it "safe" to shoot up heroin bought off the street?

Does shooting up at a government sponsored shooting gallery make it safe?

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48095&Disp=10#C10

[ConservingFreedom #10] No, I'm asking about people who have refrained from heroin use only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites. The people you're talking about did not refrain from heroin use.

What addict has ever refrained from shooting up because he lacked a "safe" injection site?

Because a state-sponsored shooting gallery would be a criminal enterprise under Federal law, it would invite Federal charges against all involved, including government officials and those at the "safe" sites.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48095

[Article] "It's just an exercise of discretion we see law enforcement make all the time," said Patricia Sully, a member of the task force and a staff attorney at Seattle's Public Defender Association. "The public health authority has the power to operate a facility like this as a public health emergency measure."

No, it is not an exercise of discretion. It is a Federal crime.

Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) at 14:

In enacting the CSA, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 21 U. S. C. § 812(c). This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW “that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway.” Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment. § 812(b)(1). These three factors, in varying gradations, are also used to categorize drugs in the other four schedules. For example, Schedule II substances also have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence, but unlike Schedule I drugs, they have a currently accepted medical use. § 812(b)(2). By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study. §§823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 490 (2001).

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

The same goes for every controlled substance, including heroin.

"No, I'm asking about people who have refrained from heroin use only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites."

No such animals. Heroin addicts

I'm not talking about heroin addicts or even heroin users. I'm talking about people who have refrained from heroin use (NOT users, NOT addicts) only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites ... the people on whose existence in substantial numbers your statement "Im seeing a major disaster heading their way" logically depends.

[Justified:] "What they are waiting for is someone to give them the drugs so they can kill themselves with this poison."

"Drugs are not given away (nor even sold) by safe injection sites."

Of course not. Not right away.

Then those users Justified was talking about will be waiting for quite a while. Hope they bring magazines or some knitting with them.

"They should put your safe spaces next to mosques."

I thought that was where they were building the new LGBT community centers.

That would be hilarious!

"No, I'm asking about people who have refrained from heroin use only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites."

So you're asking if more people would use heroin if it was safer to use. Sure they would.

So your theory is that there are a substantial number of people who have been thinking they'd like to become homeless, helpless, worthless bums ... if only there were safe injections sites to shoot up at?"

"However, several sources indicate an increase in new, young users across the country who are being lured by inexpensive, high-purity heroin that can be sniffed or smoked instead of injected."

No evidence that this is about "safety" rather than an instinctual aversion to needles.

You knew that, right? Yet you dragged in the red herring anyways. Typical troll.

I'm not talking about heroin addicts or even heroin users. I'm talking about people who have refrained from heroin use (NOT users, NOT addicts) only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites

I think that is a mute point. Either you are a users/addict or not. Will people run up there that have never used heroin and start using because its a safe haven. No. What you will have is many junkies go up there because they will not be harassed.

Is that clearer?

Because everyone has a right to free college, free health care, and free heroin.

So we should ban everything we don't want the government to give away for free?

[ConservingFreedom #7] Drugs are not given away (nor even sold) by safe injection sites.

How is it "safe" to shoot up heroin bought off the street?

Does shooting up at a government sponsored shooting gallery make it safe?

I didn't invent the term; I agree that clean needles still leave heroin use dangerous.

[ConservingFreedom #10] No, I'm asking about people who have refrained from heroin use only because of the previous lack of safe injection sites. The people you're talking about did not refrain from heroin use.

What addict has ever refrained from shooting up because he lacked a "safe" injection site?

Exactly my point - since the absence of "safe" injection sites didn't decrease heroin use, their presence won't increase it.

Will people run up there that have never used heroin and start using because its a safe haven. No.

I agree - so why are you "seeing a major disaster heading their way"?

I agree - so why are you "seeing a major disaster heading their way"?

Because I see half the junkie population going there because its a safe zone for junkies. They will have no job or the ability to hold job. Which means stealing and prostitution. Then I see progressives saying we have to help these people by providing clean needles and clean drugs.

"So your theory is that there are a substantial number of people who have been thinking they'd like to become homeless, helpless, worthless bums ... if only there were safe injections sites to shoot up at?"

I'm saying there are a number of people who have been thinking they'd like to try heroin if it was safer and consequence-free.

"No evidence that this is about "safety" rather than an instinctual aversion to needles."

Just as there is no evidence that this is about an "instinctual aversion to needles" rather than about safety.

"So your theory is that there are a substantial number of people who have been thinking they'd like to become homeless, helpless, worthless bums ... if only there were safe injections sites to shoot up at?"

I'm saying there are a number of people who have been thinking they'd like to try heroin if it was safer and consequence-free.

Using heroin will never be consequence-free - for reasons that matter much more to any remotely sane person than does needle hygiene.

"No evidence that this is about "safety" rather than an instinctual aversion to needles."

Just as there is no evidence that this is about an "instinctual aversion to needles" rather than about safety.

Exactly my point: it proves nothing.

Because I see half the junkie population going there because its a safe zone for junkies.

Ah, so by "their" you meant the vicinities of the 'safe consumption' sites rather than the city as a whole. Sure, the sites will attract some users from elsewhere in the city ... but the greater the number of sites, the less the impact at each one. Also, police can be redeployed accordingly. I'm not seeing a "major disaster."

"Exactly my point: it proves nothing."

Or it proves both.

So we should ban everything we don't want the government to give away for free?

Son, the government does not give away anything for FREE. Somebody PAYS for it. I'm not interested in paying for your drugs or drug-related expenses. If you can't pay for your own habit, quit. If you steal to pay for your habit, prison. There is no right to be a junkie on the government tit. You should rehandle as ConservingLiberalism. Your tagline can be "Free drugs for everybody."

How is it "safe" to shoot up heroin bought off the street?

Does shooting up at a government sponsored shooting gallery make it safe?

I didn't invent the term; I agree that clean needles still leave heroin use dangerous.

You are the one who used the impossible to be true term.

You are the one who supports the establishment of state government sponsored shooting galleries for unsafe injection of heroin. Heroin is not only unsafe, it is deadly. We have no plague of elderly lifelong heroin addicts. Lifelong for a heroin addict just isn't that long.

What addict has ever refrained from shooting up because he lacked a "safe" injection site?

Exactly my point - since the absence of "safe" injection sites didn't decrease heroin use, their presence won't increase it.

Government subsidizing of anything increases consumption. Government sponsorship of heroin use will increase its use. Your tortured logic appears to come from an addled brain.

Some of the points you hid from:

They can turn the pushers into government civil service workers and tax the stuff to assist with Obamacare. They can even have Obamacare provide free counseling for parents whose child turns of age and has a legal right to go to the government shooting gallery. The parent cannot intervene without violating the addict's right to use heroin.

- - - - - - - - - -

What jobs are heroin addicts eligible to have, and capable of keeping? How do they make the money to support their habit?

Does the right to use, and be addicted to heroin, come with a free house and food?

Does an addict's right to use heroin extend to a pregnant woman shooting up at a government-sponsored "safe" injection site?

If the government sponsors a shooting gallery, at what age do children have a right to shoot up heroin?

When is the parents' right to intervene overcome by the child's right to use heroin?

Do pregnant women have the right to shoot up heroin at a state sponsored shooting gallery?

If the government sponsors heroin use, and heroin addiction, who pays the living expenses for the addicts?

What possible defense would any participant have to Federal criminal charges?

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

While the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana, heroin, or any other controlled substance.

[misterwhite #17] So you're asking if more people would use heroin if it was safer to use. Sure they would.

[ConservingFreedom #22] So your theory is that there are a substantial number of people who have been thinking they'd like to become homeless, helpless, worthless bums ... if only there were safe injections sites to shoot up at?"

More people would remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums if encouraged to use state sponsored shooting galleries to continue their addiction until they die.

Because everyone has a right to free college, free health care, and free heroin.

"So we should ban everything we don't want the government to give away for free?"

Son, the government does not give away anything for FREE.

YOUR word not mine.

"I didn't invent the term; I agree that clean needles still leave heroin use dangerous."

You are the one who used the impossible to be true term.

I used the common (albeit inaccurate) term for something - what of it?

What addict has ever refrained from shooting up because he lacked a "safe" injection site?

"Exactly my point - since the absence of "safe" injection sites didn't decrease heroin use, their presence won't increase it."

Government subsidizing of anything increases consumption.

You're contradicting you previous statement - do let me know when you make up your mind.

"So your theory is that there are a substantial number of people who have been thinking they'd like to become homeless, helpless, worthless bums ... if only there were safe injections sites to shoot up at?"

More people would remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums if encouraged to use state sponsored shooting galleries to continue their addiction until they die.

Provide evidence that any junkies quit because of lack of state sponsored shooting galleries.

Junkies quit when they OD for the last time.

YOUR word not mine.

Meaningless. You want to give away FREE shit that other people pay for. Rehandle as ConservingLiberslism.

I used the common (albeit inaccurate) term for something - what of it?

You use inaccurate terms for everything. In other words, you constantly try to bullshit the reader.

What addict has ever refrained from shooting up because he lacked a "safe" injection site?

"Exactly my point - since the absence of "safe" injection sites didn't decrease heroin use, their presence won't increase it."

Government subsidizing of anything increases consumption.

You're contradicting you previous statement - do let me know when you make up your mind.

Unscramble your drug addled brain.

Addicts do not refrain from shooting up because they lack a "safe" injection site. They are addicts.

When government subsidizes something, consumption of that something increases.

Those statements do not conflict or contradict each other.

And what you continue to hide from:

What jobs are heroin addicts eligible to have, and capable of keeping? How do they make the money to support their habit?

Does the right to use, and be addicted to heroin, come with a free house and food?

Does an addict's right to use heroin extend to a pregnant woman shooting up at a government-sponsored "safe" injection site?

If the government sponsors a shooting gallery, at what age do children have a right to shoot up heroin?

When is the parents' right to intervene overcome by the child's right to use heroin?

Do pregnant women have the right to shoot up heroin at a state sponsored shooting gallery?

If the government sponsors heroin use, and heroin addiction, who pays the living expenses for the addicts?

What possible defense would any participant have to Federal criminal charges?

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

While the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana, heroin, or any other controlled substance.

Don't run and hide, child. Step up to the plate and take responsibility for the alligator mouth that overloaded your canary ass.

Do pregnant women have a right to shoot up at one of your state-sponsored inspirational shooting galleries?

What is your possible defense to a federal bust?

You want to give away FREE shit that other people pay for.

False.

"I used the common (albeit inaccurate) term for something - what of it?"

You use inaccurate terms for everything.

Witless blather.

Addicts do not refrain from shooting up because they lack a "safe" injection site. They are addicts.

When government subsidizes something, consumption of that something increases.

From which it would follow that in the absence of a subsidy consumption is less than it would otherwise be - yet you say the opposite in your first sentence.

And what you continue to hide from:

I'm under no obligation to play 20-stupid-questions with you.

What jobs are heroin addicts eligible to have, and capable of keeping? How do they make the money to support their habit?

Stupid question - nobody here endorses heroin use or addiction.

Does the right to use, and be addicted to heroin, come with a free house and food?

Of course not - another stupid question.

Does an addict's right to use heroin extend to a pregnant woman shooting up at a government-sponsored "safe" injection site?

Stupid question - nobody has a "right" to use the site; the issue is whether turning away or arresting pregnant women who show up at the site has a good or bad outcome. Once the word gets out and pregnant addicts avoid the sites and shoot up where they always did, is that better or worse for their babies?

If the government sponsors a shooting gallery, at what age do children have a right to shoot up heroin?

Stupid question - the sites confer no "right" to use heroin.

When is the parents' right to intervene overcome by the child's right to use heroin?

Same as the age for using the deadly addictive drug alcohol, I suppose.

If the government sponsors heroin use, and heroin addiction, who pays the living expenses for the addicts?

Stupid question - the sites are not sponsoring heroin use or heroin addiction.

What possible defense would any participant have to Federal criminal charges?

Stupid question - to refrain from arresting a user is not to authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of heroin.

"So your theory is that there are a substantial number of people who have been thinking they'd like to become homeless, helpless, worthless bums ... if only there were safe injections sites to shoot up at?"

More people would remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums if encouraged to use state sponsored shooting galleries to continue their addiction until they die.

Provide evidence that any junkies quit because of lack of state sponsored shooting galleries.

Unscramble your drug addled brain.

Addicted junkies do not quit because of a lack of state sponsored shooting galleries. Addicts look for their next fix wherever they can get it.

[nolu chan #18] What addict has ever refrained from shooting up because he lacked a "safe" injection site?

Read it again. Where does your bullshit question come from?

What you are avoiding:

More people would remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums if encouraged to use state sponsored shooting galleries to continue their addiction until they die.

Come on, you little weasel. Deny it. You would just keep them addicted until they die.

They develop tolerance and need more and more to achieve the same effect. They destroy various body organs in the process. They die young.

In one of the less glorious aspects of being a junkie, heroin is a very powerful anti-diarrhea medication. Junkies get to suffer fecal impactions. They may help each other in pairs at manual removal. Perhaps you could volunteer to help a junkie out.

More people would remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums if encouraged to use state sponsored shooting galleries to continue their addiction until they die.

"Provide evidence that any junkies quit because of lack of state sponsored shooting galleries."

Addicted junkies do not quit because of a lack of state sponsored shooting galleries.

Exactly my point: the number of those who remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums has nothing to do with state sponsored shooting galleries.

You want to give away FREE shit that other people pay for.

False.

You are the first to give government goods and services for free. You must tell everyone how the government provides good and services for free and nobody pays anything. And, while you are at it, you could rehandle to ConservingLiberalism.

"I used the common (albeit inaccurate) term for something - what of it?"

You use inaccurate terms for everything.

Witless blather.

Is that what you want to call your bullshit? Witless blather? Ok. You use witless blather for everything. I would say terminological inexactitudes, but Winston Churchill objects from the grave.

Addicts do not refrain from shooting up because they lack a "safe" injection site. They are addicts.

When government subsidizes something, consumption of that something increases.

From which it would follow that in the absence of a subsidy consumption is less than it would otherwise be - yet you say the opposite in your first sentence.

Your response is that of a doper asshole without an answer.

Your logic is obviously drug addled.

When government subsidizes something, consumption of that something increases.

Addicts do not refrain from shooting up because they lack a "safe" injection site. They are addicts.

One does not contradict the other.

And what you continue to hide from:

I'm under no obligation to play 20-stupid-questions with you.

Your response is that of a doper asshole with not answers. As we know, it you had answers, you would jump at the opportunity to serve one up.

What jobs are heroin addicts eligible to have, and capable of keeping? How do they make the money to support their habit?

Stupid question - nobody here endorses heroin use or addiction.

You endorse and encourage the continued addition of addicts until they die. There are no elderly lifelong heroin addicts.

As you encourage continued addiction at state-sponsored shooting galleries, how the junkie gets the money to pay for his smack is not a stupid question. Is he supposed to hold a job? Is he supposed to steal? Or is he supposed to be given free money to buy heroin?

Your response is that of a doper asshole without an answer.

Does the right to use, and be addicted to heroin, come with a free house and food?

Of course not - another stupid question.

You encourage junkies to continue their addiction at state-sponsored shooting galleries until they die.

How is a junkie supposed to support himself? The really messed up junkie is as close as we come to the walkers on The Walking Dead. And that is alright with you. They should continue that existence with as government sponsorship.

As the government would sponsor lifelong addiction, what would it do about the housing and food needs of the sponsored addict?

Your response is that of a doper asshole without an answer.

If the government sponsors a shooting gallery, at what age do children have a right to shoot up heroin?

Stupid question - the sites confer no "right" to use heroin.

Who is permitted entry into the state-sponsored shooting gallery for the purpose of shooting up heroin?

Is this a public facility whose access is governed by equal rights laws?

Is there any criteria whatever for who gets to shoot up at a state-sponsored shooting gallery?

Your response is that of a doper asshole without an answer.

When is the parents' right to intervene overcome by the child's right to use heroin?

Same as the age for using the deadly addictive drug alcohol, I suppose.

So, when the child turns 21, the parents can no longer seek intervention.

I have known old drunks, but have never known an old heroin addict. They do not live to get old.

Your response is that of a doper asshole.

If the government sponsors heroin use, and heroin addiction, who pays the living expenses for the addicts?

Stupid question - the sites are not sponsoring heroin use or heroin addiction.

The state-sponsored shooting galleries would be perpetuating the drug addiction of the addicts. They must support their habit and pay for living expenses somehow. As you encourage their continued, state-sponsored addiction until death, how do they pay the bills? Do they hold down a job that pays the bills, do they steal, do they engage in prostitution? Or do you give them someone else's money to pay for their smack?

Your response is that of a doper asshole.

What possible defense would any participant have to Federal criminal charges?

Stupid question - to refrain from arresting a user is not to authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of heroin.

A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.

Your response is that of a doper asshole.

To establish a state-sponsored shooting gallery is a federal crime.

The possession of heroin is a federal crime.

You did not answer the question of what possible defense would anyone involved have to a federal prosecution.

A government strong enough to impose current federal standards did exactly that — it imposed those federal standards on every Federal jurisdiction in the nation, and that includes all 50 states.

That government is strong enough to change those standards. It has NOT done so.

What possible defense would any participant have to Federal criminal charges? Heroin is contraband.

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

While the CSA remains in effect, state cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana, heroin, or any other controlled substance.

Opening a state-sponsored shooting gallery is a federal crime as set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 856.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-d/sec.-856/

2014 US Code
Title 21 - Food and Drugs (Sections 1 - 2252)
Chapter 13 - Drug Abuse Prevention and Control (Sections 801 - 971)
Subchapter I - Control and Enforcement (Sections 801 - 904)
Part D - Offenses and Penalties (Sections 841 - 865)
Sec. 856 - Maintaining drug-involved premises

21 U.S.C. § 856 (2014)

§856. Maintaining drug-involved premises

(a) Unlawful acts

Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful to—

(1) knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance;

(2) manage or control any place, whether permanently or temporarily, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.

(b) Criminal penalties

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $500,000, or both, or a fine of $2,000,000 for a person other than an individual.

(c) Violation as offense against property

A violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be considered an offense against property for purposes of section 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) of title 18.

(d) Civil penalties

(1) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than the greater of—

(A) $250,000; or

(B) 2 times the gross receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation that is attributable to the person.

(2) If a civil penalty is calculated under paragraph (1)(B), and there is more than 1 defendant, the court may apportion the penalty between multiple violators, but each violator shall be jointly and severally liable for the civil penalty under this subsection.

(e) Declaratory and injunctive remedies

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to declaratory and injunctive remedies as set forth in section 843(f) of this title.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §416, as added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §1841(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–52; amended Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXVI, §3613(e), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1230; Pub. L. 108–21, title VI, §608(b)(1), (2), (c), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 691.)

See also, 21 U.S.C. § 848, Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Does an addict's right to use heroin extend to a pregnant woman shooting up at a government-sponsored "safe" injection site?

Stupid question - nobody has a "right" to use the site; the issue is whether turning away or arresting pregnant women who show up at the site has a good or bad outcome.

So, you are going to have a state-sponsored shooting gallery that no one has the right to use.

And how would you know if a woman who shows up to shoot up is pregnant? What will you do? Ask a junkie? Give them all a pregnancy test?

You would knowingly take a pregnant woman in to shoot up?

And you think that could possibly have a good outcome?

Once the word gets out and pregnant addicts avoid the sites and shoot up where they always did, is that better or worse for their babies?

Yes, you would knowingly have a state-sponsored shooting gallery take in a pregnant woman to shoot up heroin.

Because your drug-addled brain thinks that would be better for her baby.

You are one sick puppy.

Your response is that of a doper asshole.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 2 - work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 - The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (in this clause) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion. As James Madison said in The Federalist No. 44, "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation."

In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death. Bills of attainder also required the "corruption of blood"; that is, they denied to the condemned's heirs the right to inherit his estate. Bills of pains and penalties, in contrast, singled out designated persons or groups for punishment less than death, such as banishment or disenfranchisement. Many states had enacted both kinds of statutes after the Revolution.

The Framers forbade bills of attainder as part of their strategy of undoing the English law of treason, and to contend with what they regarded as the most serious historical instances of legislative tyranny by state or national legislatures. Professor Raoul Berger argues that the bill of attainder clauses (see also Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) protect only against legislative actions that affect the life of the individual, not his property, which was the province of bills of pains and penalties. Beginning with Chief Justice John Marshall, however, the Supreme Court has insisted that "a Bill of Attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both." Fletcher v. Peck (1810).

Marshall and his successors saw the Bill of Attainder Clause as an element of the separation of powers. As the decisions of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and United States v. Klein (1871) made clear, only a court can hold a trial, evaluate the evidence, and determine the merits of the claim or accusation. The Constitution forbade the Congress from "exercis[ing] the power and office of judge." Cummings v. Missouri (1867). In United States v. Brown (1965), the Court specifically rejected a "narrow historical approach" to the clauses and characterized the Framers' purpose as to prohibit "legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups."

Even with an expansive definition, the Bill of Attainder Clause provides only limited protection against retroactive civil legislation. The modern Court rarely invokes the clause's protection; it has not invalidated legislation on bill-of-attainder grounds since 1965. Moreover, the only laws that the Court has invalidated as bills of attainder have been bars on the employment of specific individuals or groups of individuals.

The Court devised a three-part test to determine when a piece of legislation violates the Bill of Attainder Clause: such legislation specifies the affected persons (even if not done in terms within the statute), includes punishment, and lacks a judicial trial. Because of the Court's relatively narrow definition of punishment, however, it rarely, if ever, invalidates legislation on this basis. For example, the Court has held that the denial of noncontractual government benefits such as financial aid was not punishment, Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (1984), nor did an act requisitioning the recordings and material of President Richard M. Nixon and several of his aides constitute punishment. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977). Exclusion from employment, however, is a form of punishment. United States v. Brown (1965).

www.heritage.org/constitu...says/62/bill-of-attainder

---

nolu>> Yes, you would knowingly have a state-sponsored shooting gallery take in a pregnant woman to shoot up heroin.

You would work "corruption of blood", Bill of Attainder, against an innocent unborn child, and punish them for the sins of their mother! This could very well be fatal for the child, as well as the mother.

What's the difference between you and an abortionist?

Ah, so by "their" you meant the vicinities of the 'safe consumption' sites rather than the city as a whole. Sure, the sites will attract some users from elsewhere in the city ... but the greater the number of sites, the less the impact at each one. Also, police can be redeployed accordingly. I'm not seeing a "major disaster."

Sounds like Bush when he said they would welcome us in and the rest of the ME would love us.

I see every junkie that has the ability to move will move there. When they can not find work they will start steal or start prostituting themselves. When that doesn't work well enough because like a college town you can never find a job because everyone there is looking for the same job they will spread out. Hard drug junkies are not the same as normal druggies such as pot smokers and cocaine freaks. Its all about the high and doing whatever it takes to get high again.

But hey its not my town so go for it!!!! ;)

nolu>> Yes, you would knowingly have a state-sponsored shooting gallery take in a pregnant woman to shoot up heroin.

You would work "corruption of blood", Bill of Attainder, against an innocent unborn child, and punish them for the sins of their mother! This could very well be fatal for the child, as well as the mother.

You do not know what the hell you are talking about and should not try to use legal terms you do not understand. It only makes you look ridiculous.

What's the difference between you and an abortionist?

I would never consider enabling a pregnant woman to shoot up with heroin.

You scumbag druggies are like an abortionist in that you value no life but your own.

Even if the baby survives to birth, and is lucky enough not to have birth defects, he or she will certainly be born addicted to heroin. Way to go shitbag.

I would have your expectant baby mama taken into custody for child endangerment, and keep her there until the child is born.

You would take her to a shooting gallery to shoot up with heroin.

And that is the difference between me and an abortionist.

Addicted junkies do not quit because of a lack of state sponsored shooting galleries.

Exactly my point: the number of those who remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums has nothing to do with state sponsored shooting galleries.

You only prove that druggies can rationalize anything.

More people would remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums if encouraged to use state sponsored shooting galleries to continue their addiction until they die.

That's what you would do. You would encourage them to stay addicted until they die.

Come on, you little weasel. Deny it. You would just keep them addicted until they die.

And you would knowingly have a state-sponsored shooting gallery take in a pregnant woman to shoot up heroin, druggie rationalizing that would be better for the baby than taking the expectant mother into custody. You are sick.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48095&Disp=41#C41

I would have your expectant baby mama taken into custody for child endangerment, and keep her there until the child is born.

What's the difference between you and a Barbary Pirate slave trader?

What's the difference between you and a Barbary Pirate slave trader?

I would not engage in the slave trade involving you or your addicted baby mama.

A Barbary Pirate might do so.

And that is the difference between me and a Barbary Pirate slaver.

Why hardly anyone dies from a drug overdose in Portugal

Portugal decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001. Weed, cocaine, heroin, you name it -- Portugal decided to treat possession and use of small quantities of these drugs as a public health issue, not a criminal one. The drugs were still illegal, of course. But now getting caught with them meant a small fine and maybe a referral to a treatment program -- not jail time and a criminal record.

Whenever we debate similar measures in the U.S. -- marijuana decriminalization, for instance -- many drug-policy makers predict dire consequences. “If you make any attractive commodity available at lower cost, you will have more users," former Office of National Drug Control Policy deputy director Thomas McLellan once said of Portugal's policies. Joseph Califano, founder of the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, once warned that decriminalization would "increase illegal drug availability and use among our children."

But in Portugal, the numbers paint a different story. The prevalence of past-year and past-month drug use among young adults has fallen since 2001, according to statistics compiled by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, which advocates on behalf of ending the war on drugs. Overall adult use is down slightly too. And new HIV cases among drug users are way down.

Now, numbers just released from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction paint an even more vivid picture of life under decriminalization: drug overdose deaths in Portugal are the second-lowest in the European Union.

You scumbag druggies are like an abortionist in that you value no life but your own.

Rather ironic (or is it hypocritical) for someone who worships SCOTUS to say - after all, aren't they the ones who legalized abortion in the first place?

Why hardly anyone dies from a drug overdose in Portugal

Eleva seu nivel de vida, caga de pé.

Rather ironic (or is it hypocritical) for someone who worships SCOTUS to say - after all, aren't they the ones who legalized abortion in the first place?

I do not worship SCOTUS but recognize their legal authority.

You, on the other hand, say that SCOTUS opinions do not matter. Are you being ironic or hypocritical?

I do not worship SCOTUS but recognize their legal authority.

There was this "under the US Constitution" thingy for the US Supreme Court. But you regard the Supremes as the interpreter of US Constitution. You are pretty weird.

I do not worship SCOTUS but recognize their legal authority.

You recognize their right to make it legal for women to murder their unborn children, as well as their denying the use of medical cannabis to thoise who have found that it is a viable medical alternative.

You (and the DEA) claim there are no medical benefits yet you will not allow any research.

Like I said, the days of federal over-reach into the affairs of the individual states are numbered.

Your life will be meaningless when that happens.

Eleva seu nivel de vida, caga de pé.

Oh - Latin?

I am so impressed! < / sarcasm >

Once again, you refuse to consider successful alternatives to the current War on Drugs which in case you haven't noticed is a trillion dollar failure.

I think I got you figured out - you're a prosecuting attorney specializing in drug cases.

No wonder you're such an obnoxious and unthinking little prick.

When the drug war ends (and it will) you'll have to go back to ambulance chasing you spineless little shyster

Legalize it and take the profit motive out for the pusher man. Deal with the issue in a serious manner, as a medical/spiritual problem, not by fear mongering and political gamesmanship.

But government is sponsoring this addiction and providing a nice comfortable setting to shoot up.

There's a big difference between letting people destroy themselves in the privacy of their abode and the government providing endorsement and aid to their demise.

You are the first to give government goods and services for free.

Liar. Produce the evidence.

So, you are going to have a state-sponsored shooting gallery that no one has the right to use.

They will often be permitted to use it, while not having a right to insist - just as anyone may enter my house if I allow it, but only me and my family have the right. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

And how would you know if a woman who shows up to shoot up is pregnant?

It's YOUR scenario - so it's up to YOU to tell ME. Painted yourself into a corner again.

"Once the word gets out and pregnant addicts avoid the sites and shoot up where they always did, is that better or worse for their babies?"

Yes, you would knowingly have a state-sponsored shooting gallery take in a pregnant woman to shoot up heroin.

I notice you didn't answer the question. I'll bet you never will.

I'll say it again: As a logician you're a great copy-and-paster.

I see every junkie that has the ability to move will move there.

Ability and motivation cut the percentage way down. I'm confident that even many junkies already in Seattle won't bother themselves to change their routine and go to these sites.

Addicted junkies do not quit because of a lack of state sponsored shooting galleries.

"Exactly my point: the number of those who remain homeless, helpless, worthless addicted bums has nothing to do with state sponsored shooting galleries."

You only prove that druggies can rationalize anything.

Logical consequences are not "rationalizations." You argue incoherently in support of your predetermined conclusion; have fun with that, but you'll have to play without me.

Oh - Latin?

Galician, according to https://translate.google.com/#auto/en/Eleva%20seu%20nivel% 20de%20vida%2C%20cag a%20de%20p%C3%A9 ... which unhelpfully renders it as " Elevates your standard of living, shit standing." Which, come to think of it, is as sensible as anything nolu spam has ever posted.

There was this "under the US Constitution" thingy for the US Supreme Court. But you regard the Supremes as the interpreter of US Constitution. You are pretty weird.

It is astounding that a Constitimatutional scholar, such as yourself, does not recall the jurisdiction given to the Judicial branch by the Constimatution. You are a weird fellow.

Article 3, Sec. 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ... to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I do not worship SCOTUS but recognize their legal authority.

You recognize their right to make it legal for women to murder their unborn children, as well as their denying the use of medical cannabis to thoise who have found that it is a viable medical alternative.

You (and the DEA) claim there are no medical benefits yet you will not allow any research.

When trapped like the little weasel that you are you fall back on your favorite tactic. You lie.

SCOTUS does not have a right to make it legal for women to murder their unborn children. Murder is a criminal offense punishable. Neither does SCOTUS have the right to establish your right to lie.

SCOTUS has the delegated power to interpret the Constitution. It has jurisdiction over cases and controversies. If a case or controversy requires an interpretation of the law, SCOTUS is lawfully empowered to do it.

Article 3, Sec. 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ... to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

That was firmly established over two centuries ago.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.