Posted on 12/15/2019 5:56:59 AM PST by karpov
A federal judge has ruled that a Philadelphia facility where intravenous drug users can get high under the watchful eye of medical professionals is not the same as the "crack houses" that are prohibited under federal law. Leaders in Philadelphia are now moving forward with a nonprofit "supervised injection facility" called Safehouse, with former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) on the board.
When Safehouse first announced its plans, U.S. Attorney William McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declared that such a facility would violate federal law. Rendell responded by challenging the Justice Department to arrest him.
Instead, McSwain filed a lawsuit in February asking a federal judge to rule that opening and operating Safehouse would contravene Section 856 of the Controlled Substances Act, which makes it a federal crime to open, lease, or operate a facility "for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substances." This amendment to federal drug laws was passed in 1986 as a tool to target so-called crack houses.
In Canada and across Europe, an estimated 100 supervised injection facilities operate openly and legally. Their purpose is to get drug users off the streets and into a place where they can be monitored rather than arrested. Bringing drug use into a safer setting reduces overdose deaths and the spread of disease while allowing social workers to help users find stable housing and transition into treatment if they want it.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Reason is supposed to libertarian. I understand the argument that people should be allowed to harm themselves with drugs, although I don't know how widely it should be applied. Maybe to marijuana but not heroin. What kind of libertarian thinks the government should pay for doctors at crack houses so that people can shoot up under their "watchful eye"?
I might be wrong but I think there’s one is Seattle.
What level of hell would such a place resemble upon entering.
Pile it as high as an elephants eye, and the problem solves itself.
Elected rats using your tax dollars to encourage support and protect the animals of society
The Denver Democrat vermin are also circling and smelling this t*rd. We stopped them once, but a Democrat is like a fly - always goes towards the stink. They’re at again.
wow! a modern day opium den.
They pretend there are no lessons to be learned from the Vancouver B.C. disastrous experiment.
This folly could help turn liberals out of office in 2020.
Hmm, what's different other than one is legal and other not? Or perhaps it's that drugs are given out free of charge there and you have to pay for it in a crack house? Sounds like a Disneyland for meth heads. Or is it a Hotel California where you never leave?
They’re not. And such sites have been successful in Europe.
https://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/portugal-heroin-decriminalization/
https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2019/01/28/switzerland-fights-heroin-with-heroin/
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(17)30316-1/fulltext
This is just another money grabbing industry designed to make Democrats rich and use the drug addicted. Abortion and PP are not reliable so addiction centers is the way to go.
Government sponsored Crack house. Even for Democrats this is going to far.
So, can families sue if a loved one ODs?
The had one behind the rail station in Bas, Switzerland. Drug dealers from all over Europe came in. I say let them o.d. Libertarian dittos.
Confirmed in March 2014 - the vote was 59–41, so the Pubbies knew he is scum.
San fag gives away 1 m needles a year
What was "disastrous" about it?
IMO the judge makes a credible argument:
The Government would have me read a combination of “knowingly,” “intentionally,” and
“for the purpose of” to require mere knowledge of an unidentified third party’s purpose. Its
requested interpretation would require judicial editing of the statutory text, ignore a critical term,
read (a)(1) and (a)(2) inconsistently, and lower the requisite mental state of (a)(2) in a manner
that directly contradicts the legislative context surrounding the provision. I am compelled to
reject the Government’s view of whose purpose (a)(2) concerns and accept the interpretation
that, as in (a)(1), the purpose requirement applies to the actor charged with violating the statute. - http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/19D0671P.pdf
One video shows a guy passed out in the alley next to the site, with a needle sticking out of his leg and a "lady" comes by, pulls out the needle and injects herself.
Denver radio did an expose' (710 KNUS) and has video on their site, because Denver had same plans until this.
W the Phili template, they are set to try again.
“Disaster” happens if you do safe injection and nothing else:
‘Philip Owen would say much the same. The former mayor is still fervently pro-Insite — and attends drug policy conferences around the world to say as much — but he is deeply troubled by the neighbourhood that has developed around it. “You just keep dumping money in, building social housing and filling it up with people from all around the region and the country … they all get chemically dependent, and it’s just more sales for the drug dealers,” he told the National Post in 2014. [...]
‘none of the problems cited above are reasons to not build a safe injection site. But it is perverse to look at the Downtown Eastside and claim that it is in any way a holistic success. It is palliative care on a mass scale; a system that can keep hearts from stopping, but little else.
‘Before cities throw in their lot with the “Vancouver model,” it’s important to understand the very strict limitations of what has been accomplished there — and to vociferously avoid all that has been done wrong.’ - https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tristin-hopper-vancouvers-drug-strategy-has-been-disaster-be-very-wary-of-emulating-it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.