I've literally not seen a used needle in at least a decade, but again, I'm not sure it's because of policy, it seems more likely that people have just, for the most cases, switched to different drugs.
They (local gov) tried a lot of things to fix the problem. Play classical music at the gathering area (the train/bus station). Free methadone. Free needles. Free heroin I don't believe was tried. Give the homeless a task like selling a newspaper called 'street journal', watching everyone pass by looking down on the seller. Cynical me would say these people passed away. I met one of them at a work reintegration company, and I recognized him right away. He had HIV. Though this was in ~2006. I let him listen to one of my favourite music at that time, and I remember he enjoyed it.
I learned of the popular drugs in first of high school (age 12), as part of education (alcohol, cannabis, XTC, heroin/cocaine). In my late young adulthood I ended up trying quite some drugs. Mostly psychedelics, never heroin (or cocaine), and amphetamine only once (from which I know how it feels to be an asshole). They are far too addicting, and destroy lives. I've been addicted to nicotine/cigarettes though, but so has 25+% (?) of society. It was tough getting rid of that habit (I am probably still 'addicted to it' just not practicing).
Lots of good movies (and books) were made about heroin addiction. Wir Kinder Von Bahnhof Zoo. Requiem For A Dream. Trainspotting. Just to name a few. The social setting a (young) person is in is going to have a huge influence. Sure, its also a matter of morals and values and parenthood, but how can I affect which friends my children are going to have in school?
We were never warned about drugs in primary and secondary school as there weren't any - with the exception of cigarettes, which some kids tried down behind the school toilet block but that was more a defiance of authority than a real problem. Drugs were never the topic of conversation amongst us at school.
The first time I came across discarded needles and syringes was quite some years later when I was walking around the Colosseum in Rome. It was a bit of a shock to see them in such a renowned place.
I am forever grateful that we kids grew up in such innocence of drugs (that wasn't true of other dangers however).
Fortunately, my family seems to have escaped the illicit drug problem and I no longer live in a rural area, nevertheless sometimes I wish I had Dr Who's tardis to escape back to a much simpler time - at least for a short respite anyway. :-)
Well, that's the issue. No one area within a zone of free travel can exclusively do this. That is, if Ohio did it, druggies throughout the US would go there.
But, as I understood the idea, the free drugs were required to be consumed on premises under the watch of a professional. So why would any drugs even leave the facility.
They wouldn't need to. Supply follows demand. When you get enough users in one spot, you'll find dealers. I'm strongly anti-prohibition and I think safe supply and safe injection sites are crucial, but there's no silver bullet. Every simple solution will cause knock-on problems.
The best we can do is to aim for harm minimization whilst understanding that the minimum will never be a deep notch but will always be shallow.
But yeah, implicit in these free drugs proposals is a good deal of concentration: bring in the addicts from all over the place, and make them take their drugs in this place here. It brings it's own can of worms. Which I guess is why many methadone programs come with no requirement of supervised use. Sure, they ask for too much (given tolerance, there's little way to know how much they need except skiing), and sell the surplus on the illegal market to users who aren't able or willing to join the methadone program... leading to more deaths from methadon overdoses than heroin in many years. But it's not clear the alternatives are any better.
I do think I got the dates wrong. What I'd like the US to do is adopt a similar liberal approach to prescribing medication assisted therapy, and go as far as we need to go in finding the medication that work for people, like is done today in CH. I don't think the "free firezone" approach is a good idea (akin to "hampsterdam" in The Wire), but getting addicts healthcare and a medically supervised substitute is what I meant. The big part of that in the US, IMO, is fighting the social stigma around adopting science based approaches large scale addiction management, and right now the only acceptable solution is to get people off drugs, then have them OD when they get back on. There is a better way!
Limited first HAT experiments were found sucessful, and thus expanded in 1999. In 2008 both approaches entered the law.
All data from here: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00412-0 , but you can found it in a lot of papers.
The opioid/heroin epidemic that hit the whole Europe, took place in the 80's, with AIDS making it worse at later 80's and early 90's, causing all countries in Europe to tackle the problem hard starting in the early 90's. Yet you claim that HAT not only was shutdown in early 90's but that it was the thing that created the mess.
Dates don't add up, sorry. Maybe you are talking about a different swiss experiment, and not the internationally famous HAT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platzspitz_park
They shut it down in '92, which led to junkies spreading throughout the city, particularly on and around Langstrasse.
It wasn't until a real crackdown that things got better. They tried a few approaches like the treatments you mentioned, but that's very different than the laissez-faire decriminalization experiment that blew up in everyone's face.
There's a good documentary or article about the whole thing I meant to recommend but I can't find it at the moment.
It's obvious that if you put all the junkies of a county in a single park, without even the minimal hygienic measures, you create a mess. That's not laissez-faire, that's a mess, but to their credit at least they tried something different than the cycle "heroin user -> scum to jail or to cemetery". It would happen with anything imaginable: "now all homeless are allowed in the Platzspitz Park and nowhere else", a month later the park is covered with homeless trash to nobody's surprise.
The HAT is a step further (not backward) in decriminalization: you are hooked to heroin, metadone doesn't work. But you are not a criminal, and thus we will take a medical approach.
Absolutely, it's harm minimization for both the addict and for the rest of society.
> It wasn’t until a real crackdown that things got better.
Yes, there was a crackdown, but it’s not like this hadn’t been done numerous times before, both in Switzerland and in other countries, so this hardly could have been the major cause of the permanent improvement (which I think we both agree did indeed occur around that time).
> They tried […] the treatments you mentioned
And THOSE were the new factor, and THAT is what made the difference. The Heroin assisted treatment is still in force (an article a few years ago mentioned that about 1400 addicts in Switzerland are in the program).
The Swiss experiment in the 80s and 90s was a complete disaster, and it wasn't until the 2010s that that part of Zurich was finally cleaned up. It attracted the worst junkies from all around Europe, it created a crime wave in a country that was crime-free. It didn't work, either, it just led to more addiction, death, and despair.