With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We affirm David E. SiTs conviction for offering for sale drug paraphernalia in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 863. Our decision in United States v. Sandsness, 988 F.2d 970 (9th Cir.1993), forecloses Sil’s argument that § 863 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Id. at 971 (rejecting the vagueness argument because “[§ 863] clearly has a core”). Similarly, because Sil’s business was substantially devoted to the sale of products that clearly constituted drug paraphernalia, we cannot say that § 863 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. See Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513, 515, 526, 114 S.Ct. 1747, 128 L.Ed.2d 539 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly denied Sil’s

A: holding statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendants case when defendant operated a fullscale head shop selling items such as pipes bongs scales roach clips and drug diluents including mannital and inositol footnotes omitted
B: holding statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to mere possession of money on jail premises
C: holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague
D: holding that attorney disciplinary rule was unconstitutionally vague as applied
A.