Yes Ttbn, the cost of pill-testing should not fall on the taxpayer.

It should probably be in the interest of venue-owners to provide this service, otherwise charities.

Foxy,

I don't mind "a female speaking on the subject" at all, and I gave your reference a quick look. But, and we have been here before, you are only presenting me with someone else you agree with. You don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you or your "female". There's a lot of emotion, undoubtedly brought on by someone's grief; but logic and common sense must prevail in the name of sanity. The majority cannot be made to pay for the foolish, minute minority.

You almost won me over Yuyutsu, I thought 'duty of care';
Establishments can't serve a person alcohol who has become intoxicated;
If drugs are done on their premises then maybe they should have a 'duty of care' to their patrons as well.
I thought why should the government and taxpayers pay for recreational pill testing?
[Their might be an argument that the government is better off just making the drugs instead and ensuring they're safe.
- You see the legalise and regulate argument keeps coming back]

But then I thought why should the venue operator be responsible for the duty of care of illegal drug users when they don't sell or serve their patrons these drugs (hopefully)
If they're not giving them the drugs there's no responsibility for 'duty of care' of the people using illegal drugs.
And what about the duty of care from police to go in and bust all these illegal drugs users instead?

And so I can't decide what the right path is for this issue;
Do I think pill testing should at least be available for illegal recreational drug use if it saves lives?

- All I can say is that I'm fairly sure no parent wants to go to their child's funeral -

In asking whether the government should pay for it, the first answer is probably not.
Why should taxpayers that don't use drugs pay for the associated costs of those that do.
I see no reason.

BUT.

Would the cost to the community OF pill testing be more than the cost to the community of NOT pill testing?

And yes, 'social cost' it sounds like socialism, and I definitely don't like it.
So, moral to the story - I'm still completely clueless on this issue.
- But it is a 'people die' issue, so not one to dismiss so easily.

Horrible as it is one day the mass murderers we know as terrorists could introduce poison to murder many
Drug use has killed many
Drug dealers are murderers
Any thing we can do to stop the deaths id worth the effort

Dear Critic,

Saving lives is not a duty but a noble virtuous act.

When government turns it into a duty or does it instead of us, it deprives us of the merit and ability to express the goodness of our heart, perhaps even the ability to repent and make good for our own historical shortcomings.

If you believe that saving the lives of young drug addicts is a worthwhile cause, then nobody should deprive you of the ability to help them yourself. You could be the venue's owner who doesn't want death on your premises; or just a good-hearted donor who gets a warm feeling when donating to a charity that helps to save their lives.

---

Dear Belly,

«Any thing we can do to stop the deaths id worth the effort»

In this case you would agree with me that the state should remove its protection from these monsters by decriminalising their murder. In other words, "they were a drug dealer" should be a valid defence on charges of murder/manslaughter.

For once I agree with Foxy.

While I agree that something has to be done to stop the scourge of illegal drugs, the fact that our youth are dying because of the variability in the strength of the drugs and toxic substances that they are cut with, there needs to be some form of harm mitigation.