> ...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.

Why would addicts pay dealers when they could get it for free? Genuine question.

Typically quantity is limited at safe sites. You can use, but you don't get to blow a whole 8 ball in one go.

I've paid more money to drink alcohol in a location I prefer countless times, so I'm sure some paid for the privilege of doing their drugs somewhere more interesting than the clinic.

Same reason you'd go to a bar to have a few drinks rather than pick up a six pack on the way home. There's more to these things than the substances themselves, something silver bullet salesman often forget to point out.

That's the theory and it's been shown to work to some extent. The trouble is the drug problem is very complex and essentially intractable.

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.

AFAIK, Switzerland wasn't all that free travel until the Schengen agreement.

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.