BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
HIV epidemic justifies needle exchanges

Alan Franciscus. "Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health" HCV Advocate. April/June 2003: "With over a 100 people in the United States becoming infected with HIV, HCV, or HBV every day as a result of injection drug use, it is clear that we must do more. We must continue to educate people about the harms of drug use, particularly injection drug use. We must pay attention to the expertise and knowledge of public health officials and scientists who urge that sterile syringes be made legally available to people who inject drugs."
Needle exchanges are favored by many publics

"Survey finds most voters favor needle exchanges." AIDS Policy Law. May 30, 1997: "AIDS: A poll conducted in April 1997 by the Human Rights Campaign indicates that a majority of Americans favor needle-exchange programs to curb the spread of HIV. Thirty-two percent of those interviewed strongly favor needle exchanges and 23 percent somewhat favor the strategy. Support for such programs was found in every region of the United States. Republicans were split but strong majorities of independents and Democrats were in favor of needle-exchange programs."
Needle exchanges often have open drug injections outside

Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Increased, Open, Injection drug Use in Areas surrounding NEP’s due to influx of users. In Downtown Eastside (Vancouver BC), police estimate there are 7,500 to 8,000 addicts, and users shoot up on the streets because the injection site has waits of up to 45 minutes5. More police had to be assigned to the area to try and minimize the number of users who were shooting up outside the NEP area."
Needle exchanges can help create treatment awareness

"Are Needle Exchange Programs a Good Idea?" by Jenny Murphy, Bryan Knowles;Thursday, June 15, 2000: "Needle exchange programs not only stem the transmission of disease by providing addicts with otherwise difficult-to-obtain sterile needles, but these programs provide support and information that can lead addicts into treatment. An addict might visit a needle exchange just to get clean needles to use to inject drugs, but they might also pick up free condoms or talk to a drug counselor about treatment options."
Needle exchanges do not increase drug use

Karthik Reddy. "The Case for Needle Exchange". October 25, 2007: "The opposition to needle exchange programs would have us believe that such programs encourage drug use. Studies of the Amsterdam program, however, demonstrate that drug use does not increase; the programs generally only attract those who have already become intravenous drug users. The implementation of the San Francisco program actually resulted in decreased drug use, as the program established much-needed links with the drug-using community."
Needle exchanges should not be forced on communities

David Noffs, Founder and Executive Director of the Life Education Center. "Should needle exchange be publicly funded?". PBS: "Lastly, many needle exchange programs have been introduced without the support of those communities where they set up shop. [...] Needle exchange program operators have arrogantly set up these illegal operations while self-righteously declaring that anyone who opposed them was either not compassionate to the plight of AIDS sufferers or homophobic. This condescending attitude has not helped their public relation efforts and has probably already determined their ultimate fate."
Needle exchanges rightly place harm reduction over all else

Alan Franciscus. "Needle Exchange - A Matter of Public Health". Hepatitis. April/June 2003: "Harm reduction holds that the health and well-being of the individual is of primary concern; if individuals are unwilling or unable to change addictive behaviors at this time, they should not be denied services. Attempts should be made to reduce the harm of their habits as much as possible. This approach to addiction is viewed by some as compassionate and pragmatic; by others as selfish and dangerous."
Referrals to treatment are low at needle exchanges

"Report: Needle Exchange Program Finds Mixed Success in Atlantic City". Join Together. January 22, 2009: "Atlantic City, N.J.'s needle-exchange program -- the state's first -- has succeeded in its primary mission of collecting dirty needles from drug addicts in exchange for clean ones but has had less success getting addicted individuals into drug treatment, a new report concludes. [...] the Atlantic City program ranked last among the state's four needle exchanges in terms of referrals to drug treatment, with only 74 referrals made. Program coordinator Therese Wilkerson said that staff must walk a fine line between wanted to get clients into treatment and scaring them off by pushing too hard."
Needle exchanges help fight spread of disease

Mark Cichocki. "Why Do We Need Needle Exchange?". About.com. September 3, 2007: "Needle exchange programs have also achieved reductions in the rate of hepatitis infection, which can also be spread through sharing needles. In Tacoma, WA, clients of a needle exchange program were up to eight times less likely to contract Hepatitis B or C than non-client IVDUs."
Drug dealers sell drugs near needle exchanges

Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Drug Dealers Blatantly Sell Near NEPs: Commonly, drug dealers operate unimpeded by police when they are in the area of an NEP. For example, in Vancouver Canada’s Downtown Eastside area "The dealers hang around with impunity on the corner of Hastings and Main and the police don't touch them."
HIV transmission has increased despite needle exchanges

David Noffs, Founder and Executive Director of the Life Education Center. "Should needle exchange be publicly funded?". PBS: "Although promoters claim that needle exchange programs do not encourage drug use, there has been a major increase in heroin use since needle exchange programs have become widespread. Heroin use by American teens has doubled in the past 5 years. Dr. Lucy Sullivan of the Australian Centre for Independent Studies states that hepatitis prevalence among intravenous drug users is 65%, suggesting that free needles are not having their intended effect of preventing exchange of body fluids. Sullivan also states that 'There is no sign of an impact on the rate of decline (of HIV incidence rates) with the introduction of needle distribution in 1992.' (Sullivan, 1997)."
Needle exchanged increase discarded needles on streets

Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007: "Discarded Needles: Reports of discarded needles in public places outside of NEP sites abound from cities with NEP’s. Here is just one example. In Cairns Australia, City Place has been revealed as Cairn’s biggest drug shooting gallery with 1000 syringes discarded since January in toilets and streets surrounding the inner city mall. Addicts are also dumping hundreds of used syringes at many of the city's other popular public places, including the Esplanade near Muddy's playground, the city library, in gardens and in various other public places. The figures were released by Cairns City Council after a recent audit of its sharps disposal bin program7."
Needle exchanges protect public, not just drug addicts.

While opponents may argue that drug-abusers must live with the consequences of their decisions to use dirty needles, the issue is not just about helping drug-addicts avoid diseases. It is also about protecting the public from the consequences of the spread of these diseases. The consequences include higher risks of infection as well as higher taxpayer costs in providing the health care for more sick people. Also, needle exchanges help protect the families of drug-addicts from the possibility of their loved-one acquiring a potentially fatal disease such as HIV.
A needle exchange has a positive effect now, but not later.

Some studies have shown that needle exchanges no effect on drug use, or a small deterring effect. These studies however tend to focus on the short term, what isn't looked at is the mass effect, on a large population scale, as well as over a very long period time. Any sort of needle exchange is a step towards condoning drug use, or at least accepting it. To eradicate drugs you never want to have any sort of acceptance of the substance. Also some studies talk about how needle exchanges give drug users, networks and a chance to get better. It would probably be a lot easier and more beneficial to simply set up networks specifically for helping people who have drug addictions.
No time for Congressional approval for initial action.

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the international community, declaring, “We will have no mercy and no pity.” At that moment, as the President explained in his speech to the nation on March 28: “We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Stopping a potential humanitarian disaster became a question of hours, not days. The costs of inaction would have been profound. Thousands of civilians would very likely have been slaughtered, a ruthless dictator would have been triumphant precisely at a time when people across the region are challenging decades of repression, and key U.S. allies, including Egypt and Tunisia, would have been threatened by instability on their borders during a critical point in their own transitions toward a more promising future."
Obama implies drone warfare OK without Congr approval.

Jacob Sullum. "Why Obama’s stand on Libya is absurd." Chicago Sun Times. June 21st, 2011: "According to the administration’s logic, Congress has no say over the president’s use of the armed forces as long as it does not involve boots on the ground or a serious risk of U.S. casualties — a gaping exception to the legislative branch’s war powers in an era of increasingly automated and long-distance military action. As Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, a former head of the OLC, told the Times, 'The administration’s theory implies that the president can wage war with drones and all manner of offshore missiles without having to bother with the War Powers Resolution’s time limits.'"
Obama had time to seek Congressional approval on Libya.

Bruce Ackerman. "Obama's Unconstitutional War." Foreign Policy. March 24th, 2011: "in the Libyan case, the president had plenty of time to get congressional support. A broad coalition -- from Senator John McCain to Senator John Kerry -- could have been mobilized on behalf of a bipartisan resolution as the administration engaged in the necessary international diplomacy. But apparently Obama thought it more important to lobby the Arab League than the U.S. Congress."
US/NATO have acted consistent with UN Res 1973.

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15, 2011: "In the intervening weeks and months, coalition efforts have been effective in protecting the Libyan population. The regime has suffered numerous defeats, cities and towns across Libya have been liberated from brutal sieges, strong sanctions are in place, and the regime is encountering serious difficulties raising revenues through oil sales or other means. All these actions and outcomes are consistent with UNSCR 1973."
US is committing acts of war in Libya; War Powers apply.

Tufts University law professor Michael Glennon, who has studied the U.N. Charter, compares Obama joining the coalition against Muammar Gaddafi with Harry Truman’s unilateral decision to enter the fight that turned into the Korean War. “If you don’t call it a war, you can just bypass the constitutional requirements of starting a war. That’s a totally bogus argument.” He points out that the length and scope of the conflict may not matter - a missile launched against another country could be considered an act of war, even though it only took a handful of minutes and a couple million dollars. Acts of war are clearly just as important as full-blown wars, so are covered by the War Powers.
Obama administration consulted with Congress on Libya

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "The Administration has consulted extensively with Congress about U.S. engagement in Libya. Since March 1, the Administration has: testified at over 10 hearings that included a substantial discussion of Libya; participated in over 30 Member and/or staff briefings, including the March 18 Presidential meeting with Congressional Leadership, Committee Chairs and Ranking Members; all three requested 'All Members Briefings' (two requested by the Senate, one by the House); and all requested 'All Staff Briefings;' conducted dozens of calls with individual Members; and provided 32 status updates via e-mail to over 1,600 Congressional staff."
US has lead role in NATO in Libyan war.

Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway. "Death of the War Powers Act." Washington Post. May 17th, 2011: "American planes and drones continued their bombing long after the April turnover — and the drones are still flying over Libya. Since the cost of the mission is at three-quarters of a billion dollars and climbing, it is sheer fiction to suggest that we are no longer a vital player in NATO’s 'Operation Unified Protector.' This is especially so when an active-duty American officer remains at the top of NATO’s chain of command. As supreme allied commander, Adm. James Stavridis 'leads all NATO military operations.' While a Canadian air force general, Charles Bouchard, is in charge of the Libyan campaign, the buck doesn’t stop with him but with Stavridis, who also reports to the Pentagon as head of the U.S. European command. Even if American drones discontinue their operations before the deadline, an American admiral will still be in a position to call the shots."
Senate voted for UN Libya Res and Obama has enforced it.

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "Rather than respond to the international community’s demand for an end to the violence, Qadhafi’s forces continued their brutal assault against the Libyan people. On March 1, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution that “condemn[ed] the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protestors” and urged that the United Nations take action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including by imposing a no-fly zone."
UN authorization of Libyan war no substitute for Congr approval

Bruce Ackerman. "Obama's Unconstitutional War." Foreign Policy. March 24th, 2011: "Obtaining a U.N. Security Council resolution has legitimated U.S. bombing raids under international law. But the U.N. Charter is not a substitute for the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president, the power 'to declare war.'"
Costs of engagement in Libya help show it's a war.

Dem Rep Dennis Kucinich April 19th letter to colleagues on Libya conflict regarding introduction of legislation that will assert Congress’ constitutional responsibility to make decisions about declaring war: "The costs of this war are already mounting. According to figures recently released by the Pentagon, the war has cost the U.S. $608 million thus far, not including the costs to deploy U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the war in Libya. Experts at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believe that the U.S. costs could “easily pass the $1 billion mark…regardless of how well things go.”[2]
UN approval for Libyan engagement dilutes US authority.

"EDITORIAL: Obama’s illegal war." The Washington Times Editorial. March 18th, 2011: "The president cannot be seen as a mere instrument of the United Nations, which would relegate the U.S. Constitution to second-class status behind the U.N. Charter. If U.S. troops are going to be put in harm’s way, the authority must come from elected representatives in Washington, not from a bunch of international bureaucrats hanging out in Turtle Bay."
US needn't have been attacked to use force in Libya.

Some argue that the US wasn't attacked, so the president had no authority to use force. This, however, is too narrow an interpretation. There are many instances where vital US values and interests are at stake and must be defended. In this case, the interest in protecting civilians from mass slaughter and preventing a tyrant from winning a victory in the midst of the Arab Spring constituted a legitimate interest for the use of force.
Libyan intervention critical to US interests

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15, 2011: "The President authorized these actions for several reasons of national interest: 1. To limit the spread of violence and instability in a region pivotal to our security interests, particularly while it is undergoing sensitive transitions; 2. To prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe; and 3. To show the people of the Middle East and North Africa that America stands with them at a time of momentous transition."
Pres has authority to commit to non-war military action.

The War Powers Resolution says that it is not "intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President." As the Commander and Chief, the President does have the authority to commit the US to military action that stops short of war that is deemed by the president as critical to US national interests. This is reflected in the Pentagon's ongoing $1b budget for discretionary, urgent military engagements. Libya falls within this category completely, so is well within the Obama's Constitutional authority.
US action in Libya does not amount to hostilities/war

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision. U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors."
Protecting civilians in Libya is key US value/interest

Text of Obama's Speech On Libya: "A Responsibility To Act." NPR.org. March 28th, 2011: "To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
President's action in Libya violates his campaign pledges.

Bruce Ackerman. "Obama's Unconstitutional War." Foreign Policy. March 24th, 2011: "Many modern presidents have made such claims, and Harry Truman acted upon this assertion in Korea. But it's surprising to find Obama on the verge of ratifying such precedents. He was elected in reaction to the unilateralist assertions of John Yoo and other apologists for George W. Bush-era illegalities. Yet he is now moving onto ground that even Bush did not occupy. After a lot of talk about his inherent powers, Bush did get Congress to authorize his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, Obama is putting Bush-era talk into action in Libya -- without congressional authorization."
Obama under $1b limit in Libya; Congress not needed

Daniel Stone. "Is the Libya War legal?" The Daily Beast. March 22, 2011: "Despite the television pictures of bombs and cruise missiles finding their targets, the intervention by the United States and European allies is, legally, not yet an actual war. Funding for the U.S. involvement is coming from a flexible Pentagon spending account that allows the administration to spend up to about $1 billion dollars on urgent military matters without approval from Congress."
US maintained limited role in Libya campaign.

Text of Obama's Speech On Libya: "A Responsibility To Act." NPR.org. March 28th, 2011: "we've accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge."
Libya war expands imperial presidency farther than ever

Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway. "Death of the War Powers Act." Washington Post. May 17th, 2011: "Make no mistake: Obama is breaking new ground, moving decisively beyond his predecessors. George W. Bush gained congressional approval for his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bill Clinton acted unilaterally when he committed American forces to NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo, but he persuaded Congress to approve special funding for his initiative within 60 days. And the entire operation ended on its 78th day. In contrast, Congress has not granted special funds for Libya since the bombing began, and the campaign is likely to continue beyond the 30-day limit set for termination of all operations."
Even regime change goals in Libya have moral legitimacy.

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15, 2011: "A growing chorus of international voices has now called for Qadhafi’s departure, including the G8, the Contact Group representing more than 20 countries, Russian President Medvedev, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, and several key African leaders such as the Presidents of Gabon, Mauritania, and Senegal. This growing consensus and Qadhafi’s control of less and less of Libya indicate that his departure is only a matter of time."
US gave full command in Libya to NATO on April 1

Obama Administration letter to Congress justifying Libya engagement, June 15th, 2011: "At the onset of military operations, the United States leveraged its unique military capabilities to halt the regime’s offensive actions and degrade its air defense systems before turning over full command and control responsibility to a NATO-led coalition on March 31. Since that time: Three-quarters of the over 10,000 sorties flown in Libya have now been by non-U.S. coalition partners, a share that has increased over time. All 20 ships enforcing the arms embargo are European or Canadian. The overwhelming majority of strike sorties are now being flown by our European allies while American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets, all within the UN authorization, in order to minimize collateral damage in urban areas. The United States provides nearly 70 percent of the coalition’s intelligence capabilities and a majority of its refueling assets, enabling coalition aircraft to stay in the air longer and undertake more strikes."