Very good Aesops. Your brief assessment is prety much it. To address these points individually
1) "Pill testing is bad because the tests are inaccurate and misleading"
I think hat this is the hardest one of the 2 to counter. Our work in SA shows that it CAN be inaccurate and misleading.
Our arguments are:
We openly acknowledge the deficiencies in colorimetric pilltesting as it stands. But we argue that it is important that we emphasize this with people when we do the pill testing, and educate them about the strengths and weaknesses of the system.
In the absence of pill testing, people are using pills anyway- this is quite clear. The rate of pill use is in fact increasing. Is it not better that they get some idea what is in their pill than taking them blind?
The whole point of our involvement in the pill testing process is to address the technical shortcomings of simple colorimetric tests. GCMS may not be immediate, but it does tell us what is out there
2) "Pill testing is bad because it encourages risk-taking behaviour".
The Commonwealths Department of Health and Agings own Monograph,
' The prevention of Substance use, Risk and Harm in Australia- A Review of the Evidence" published in May this year states (I think on page 235) that
" An argument often advanced against the provision of timely pill testing data to users is that it gives the impression of safety to the consumption of MDMA, which it is held may lead to increased consumption. There is no evidence to either support or refute this statement."
"There is no evidence available allowing comment on the impact of availability of testing kits on consumption levels"
"There is a need for more research and evaluation studies on the entire range of effects of on-site pill testing interventions"
By their own words...
Finally, Dirk Korf, in Europe, has shown that people who test their pills more regularly use fewer pills.
Say goodnight, Major Watters!
