"Our review found at the individual-level that SCFs were efficacious in reducing drug use related infection and disease transmission, enhancing access to addiction and other health services, and reducing the risk of non-fatal overdoses, and were not associated with a significant increase in drug use. These findings challenge the notion that SCFs may perpetuate substance use and lead to increased use among PWID. With regard to non-fatal overdose, the evidence over the past ten years have been largely been qualitative and would benefit from the use of quantitative methods that help to approximate causality. For example, the use of a propensity score modeling may help to determine the effectiveness of SCFs for individual-level outcomes based on observational or cross-sectional data (Hullsiek and Louis, 2002). Future studies may also want to consider the use of comparison groups or cities to examine the different factors influencing the effectiveness of SCFs. Additionally, we found emerging evidence that SCFs provide PWID with a sense of community that may support their overall wellbeing, thereby increasing their chances of accessing addiction treatment services. However, this evidence came qualitative studies (Rance and Fraser, 2011; Jozaghi and Andresen, 2013; Davidson et al., 2018; Kerman et al., 2020), and provides a future direction for research examining the impact of SCFs. Future quantitative studies may want to include a validated measure of wellbeing and sense of belonging. In particular, longitudinal studies should examine the degree to which a sense of belonging and having a supportive community may play a role in injection cessation and help-seeking behaviors for SCF attenders. At the community level, the evidence shows that SCFs were not associated with an increased rate of drug-related crime, and were linked to a decrease use of other costly public services (e.g. ambulance transport to hospital following an overdose). However, this evidence is still growing and requires additional research that accounts for other cofounding relationships using a longitudinal, inferential research design. Furthermore, we found that SCFs were associated with a reduction in public disorder, including less public disposal of syringes and use in public spaces. Future research should consider the gathering information from multiple sources (e.g. community members, service providers, police services) to examine the impact of SCFs on the public. Finally, there appear to be significant cost-benefits associated with SCFs, yet all of these studies have focused on the benefits related to the reduction of infectious disease transmission and injection-related death. Future studies should consider additional benefits related to the families of SCF attenders and reduction in community costs associated with decrease in public disorder."

"Globally, there are nearly 15.6 million people (aged 15–64) who inject drugs (PWID), with an estimated 2.6 million PWID in North America (Degenhardt et al., 2017). Canada and the United States (US) have both seen significant increases in the rate of injection drug use, as well as a rise in the rate of infections and fatal overdose related to injection drug use (Jacka et al., 2020; Levitt et al., 2020). The risk of fatal overdose significantly increases when people inject drugs alone, and may be prevented with timely intervention (i.e. administration of naloxone, an overdose prevention medication) (Colledge et al., 2019). There is also an increased risk of disease transmission (e.g. HIV, hepatitis) and serious infections associated with injecting drugs, which are often related to using unsterile equipment, injecting in unhygienic settings, or rushed injections (Colledge et al., 2019). The increase in injection drug use and the risks associated with using alone, in unhygienic or unsupervised settings necessitate the need for services that support safe injection practices among PWID."

"Studies found that DCS [Drug Consumption Services] influenced intended behaviour and, although less researched, enacted behaviour. Among studies of PWUD [People Who Use Drugs] in party settings (referred to as ‘partygoers’ in studies), greater intention to not use the analysed substance was consistently reported if analysis results were unexpected [33, 35, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 52] or ‘questionable’/‘suspicious’ [49–51]. For example, a cross-sectional study from Australia (n = 83) in 2018 found partygoers were more likely to change their intention to use when analysis results were unexpected [odds ratio (OR) = 2.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.85–8.16] [35], as did two cross-sectional studies from Portugal (n = 310, n = 100) in 2016 and 2014 [40, 43]. Similarly, other intended behaviour changes—such as using less of a substance or seeking more information about it—were more common among partygoers when analysis results from DCS suggested that substances were ‘questionable’/‘suspicious’ [49, 51].

"The proportion of participants reporting analysis results from DCS influenced their drug use varied by population and setting. Among partygoers, 16% of participants in the Netherlands in 1996 [29], 50% in Austria in 1997–99 [37] and 87% in New Zealand (n = 47) in 2018–19 [33] reported that analysis results impacted their drug use. A cross-sectional study in 2017 from the United States among people who inject drugs (n = 125) found 43% changed their behaviour, and this was more likely when fentanyl was detected [adjusted OR (aOR) = 5.08, 95% CI = 2.12–12.17] [22]. Qualitative and longitudinal studies of young PWUD (n = 81) in the United States in 2017 supported this finding, and found that fentanyl detection was associated with positive changes in overdose risk behaviours (i.e. using less, using with others, doing a test shot) [31, 34]. Overall, and in alignment with findings on intended drug use behaviour in response to ‘questionable’/‘suspicious’ analysis results, self-reported behaviour was more likely to change when analysis results detected fentanyl. Beyond individual analysis results, a repeated cross-sectional study from Colombia (n = 1533) in 2013 and 2016 examined the influence of alerts from DCS and found that a majority of partygoers reported an impact on their behaviour [36].

"Only one study linked intended behaviours to observed health outcomes for PWUD accessing DCS. A Canadian cross-sectional study of DCS at a supervised injection site (n = 1411) in 2016–17 found that people who inject drugs were more likely to report the intention to use a smaller quantity than usual when fentanyl was detected by DCS (OR = 9.36, 95% CI = 4.25–20.65) [41]. In turn, those intending to use a smaller quantity were found to be less likely to overdose (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.18–0.89) and be administered naloxone (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.15–0.96).

"Disposal of the analysed substance was observed [24, 26, 27, 32, 35] or self-reported [22, 31, 34] as an outcome of DCS in eight studies. Like other behaviours, disposal was more frequent when analysis results from DCS were unexpected [24, 27, 32, 52]."

"Our findings of a reduction of health problems, are consistent with harm reduction programs for people who inject drugs [19], including needle exchange programs and supervised injection sites, where they are effective in reducing overall negative health consequences. By providing users with high-quality smoking equipment and reducing the dependence on unsafe equipment, the unintended negative consequences, including exploding pipes, burns, and inhaling brillo fragments, are further reduced."

"Supervised inhalation rooms (SIR) have the potential to minimise the aforementioned barriers to care and harms associated with crack cocaine smoking [12,21]. Modelled after supervised injection facilities, SIRs are regulated environments in which people can smoke pre-obtained drugs with sterile equipment under the supervision of nurses or other trained staff [22]. These facilities aim to reduce high-risk drug use practices and blood-borne infections, increase contact between PWUD and health and social services, and improve public order through reductions in public drug use [23]. To date, SIRs have been implemented in seven countries: Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and France [24–26]. In contrast with the significant evidence of the health and community benefits of supervised injection sites, rigorous evaluation of the specific outcomes of SIRs is lacking [24,27]. However, it is plausible that many of the demonstrated health benefits associated with supervised injection sites could extend to SIRs, with available evidence suggesting that SIRs have potential to improve public order, connect PWUD with health and social services, and reduce drug-related harms [11,25]."

"According to the latest report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), an estimated 11.3 million people inject drugs globally, while HIV prevalence is estimated to be 12.6% and hepatitis C prevalence 48.5% among this population. However, while 179 of 206 countries report some injecting drug use, 110 countries and territories worldwide have no data on its prevalence. This data gap highlights the need for more and higher quality data to inform our efforts to implement appropriate harm reduction services that can address public health issues, including HIV and hepatitis C, soft tissue infections, and overdose."

"The period from 2020 to 2022 has seen increased uptake of harm reduction interventions. For the first time since 2014, the Global State of Harm Reduction has found an increase in the number of countries implementing key harm reduction services.

"This growth has been driven by new needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) opening in five African countries as well as four new countries having officially sanctioned drug consumption rooms (DCRs).a This includes a site in Mexico that had been operating without formal approval since 2018 but now has approval from local authorities. Three countries have introduced opioid agonist therapy (OAT) for the first time.

"No country has stopped the implementation of NSP, OAT [Opiate Assisted Treatment] or DCRs since 2020."

"Overarching structural problems also negatively affect access to services. Criminalisation, racism and discrimination against Indigenous, Black and brown people results in low household incomes, unemployment, food insecurity, poor housing and lower levels of education. This, in turn, results not only in worse health outcomes for these communities but also in people from these communities disengaging or actively avoiding health services.

"Women who use drugs are still frequently overlooked despite the complex harms, stigmatisation and structural violence they face. A substantial increase in gender-sensitive services is necessary to appropriately address their needs.

"For all people who use drugs, stigma and discrimination are public health issues creating barriers precisely where more support is needed. Harm reduction services are equipped to address these gaps, as non-judgmental, communitybased service delivery is among the core principles of harm reduction."

"Stigma and discrimination against people who inject drugs continue to exist and hinder service access in all contexts,^{[12–15] [16]} affecting organisations implementing NSPs. In South Africa, for example, one NSP was closed in 2018 due to concerns of insufficient stakeholder consultation and the systems available for waste management.^[17] Though the service was reinstated in late June 2020, programme staff have yet to reach the previous cohort of clients that had accessed the service before its closure.^[18]

"In addition to geographical gaps and stigmatisation of people who inject drugs, there are groups of people who inject drugs that experience barriers to access. The lack of appropriate, gender-specific programmes for women who use drugs is a recurring issue throughout most regions. Furthermore, the needs of Indigenous people are not appropriately met in Oceania,^[10,11] and there are reports of migrants who inject drugs facing barriers to accessing harm reduction services in Western Europe.^[6,9,19] NSP provision for people who use stimulants is suboptimal in many regions despite the risks involved. In Western Europe, for example, stimulant injecting has been associated with local HIV outbreaks in five countries in the past five years.^[20–22]"

"In total, there were 10,514 injections and 33 opioid-involved overdoses over 5 years, all of which were reversed by naloxone administered by trained staff (Table 1). No person who overdosed was transferred to an outside medical institution, and there were no deaths. The number of overdoses increased over the years of operation, due partially to the number of injections increasing over the same period of time (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The types of drugs used at the site changed over the 5 years of operation, with a steady increase in the proportion of injections involving the combination of opioids and stimulants, from 5% in 2014 to 60% in 2019 (Fig. S2).

"Although this evaluation was limited to one city and one site that is unsanctioned, and therefore the findings cannot be generalized, our results suggest that implementing sanctioned safe consumption sites in the United States could reduce mortality from opioid-involved overdose. Sanctioning sites could allow persons to link to other medical and social services, including treatment for substance use, and facilitate rigorous evaluation of their implementation and effect on reducing problems such as public injection of drugs and improperly discarded syringes."

"There was significant advocacy work, including volunteer-run festival-based drug checking services by Pill Testing Australia, in the years leading up to the ACT [Australian Capital Territory] Government 2021 commitment to fund a fixed-site pilot. Upon the ACT Government announcement, a consortium of organisations (Pill Testing Australia, Directions Health Services and Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy) submitted a proposal for consideration. Negotiation with the Government included assessment of costs, what services could be provided, staffing and potential locations (see Figure 1 below). The result is a drug checking service in the City Community Health Centre at 1 Moore Street in the Canberra civic area. During the pilot status the service was to operate at specified regular times each week and to be staffed by a variety of professionals. Staff at each shift include one alcohol and other drug counsellor, one primary health nurse, one peer educator, two analytical chemists and a medical practitioner on-call. A senior chemical analyst and medical toxicologist are available on-call to provide feedback on analytical results of clinical concern (novel products for which there may not be community familiarity, potentially hazardous doses, and dangerous mixtures) as well as to assess whether ACT Health should be alerted on any drugs of concern. Directions Director of Service Delivery or CEO provides management oversight."

"These findings suggest interventions are needed to further support persons who inject drugs to use naloxone and call 911 when witnessing an overdose. Given the widespread fear of legal repercussions associated with overdose responses, guidance and education are needed to inform persons who inject drugs, police, and the public about policies that legalize the possession of naloxone and to limit arrest and prosecution for carrying naloxone with other injection paraphernalia [75,76]. States and localities should expand criminal legal protections for low-level drug related violations when witnesses call 911 for an overdose."

"The overall aim of the service is to provide discreet and private advice to people wishing to have drugs tested and as such, CanTEST is free and confidential (Figure 2). Drug checking is offered on a range of drug types, in the form of pills, capsules, powders, crystals and liquids. Some substances such as plant material, blotters or dilute solutions cannot be tested (Panel 1). Drug checking requires a very small scraping/sample of the pill or drug (as little as a few mg) for analysis. The drug checking process can take around 20 minutes if both FTIR and UPLC-PDA analysis is conducted, but can take longer depending on the substance and number of service users waiting. Once the drug checking is complete, the analysts discuss the results with the service user and an alcohol and other drug counsellor and/or peer educator in order to provide service users with information about the results and discuss the risks associated with consuming the substance/s detected, as well as any other concerns service users may have. Service users can also receive non-drug checking health services, such as discussing any health needs, with the service nurse (Figure 3).

"CanTEST nurses are able to provide advice and care across a broad range of health concerns ranging from alcohol and drug assessments and harm reduction through to wound care or sexual health screening. The peer educators and AOD counsellors specialise interpretation of analytical results and advice on drug interactions, strategies to reduce harm associated with drug use and overdose prevention as well as support services available (Panel 2 and 3). The analytical chemists test the substances and provide information about and testing procedure as well as quantitative and qualitative information about the contents and purity of drug samples. Chemists also collect samples for further detailed laboratory analysis off-site at the Australian National University Research School of Chemistry and the ACT Government Analytical Laboratory (ACTGAL).

"During the first three months of operation, the service provider coalition along with ACT Health designed the level and type of public release of results. CanTEST has a protocol for identifying high-risk substances and notifying ACT Health. Upon notification of a potentially high-risk substance, ACT Health convenes relevant key experts to assess the notifications and determine whether risk communications are required. As necessary, public drug alerts or alerts for the health or AOD sector and/or clinical first responders will be prepared. No drug alerts were issued by ACT Health in the first three months of service. Several community notices have been issued by CanTEST on social media to provide targeted information for the community and service clients on particular substances identified. These notices also encourage the community to bring substances in to CanTEST for checking. Alongside the development of risk communications, the CanTEST Drug Early Warning Protocol was developed in conjunction ACT Government, which helps to identify the emergence of drugs of concern and potential changes on the local/regional drug market."

" A small number of parents of young people who use drugs accessed the service with the aim of reducing the risks of harm that their children face in using drugs.

" Twelve percent of the primary service users resided outside the ACT, but note that this would include Queanbeyan, a city contiguous with Canberra. This proportion is not high enough to imply the existence of a ‘honeypot’ effect. Instead, it demonstrates the need for this type of service in other parts of the nation.

" A new ketamine-like substance was identified in the service in September 2022. The service understands that it is the first time globally that a new substance has been identified in a drug checking service. Its significance was highlighted by the fact that the service received enquiries about the substance nationally and across the globe. The service provided GC-MS analytical data to national forensic laboratories, providing timely information on the identity of a new psychoactive substance in the Australian drug market.

" The service found an unexpectedly high level of demand from people from diverse sectors wishing to do ‘walk-throughs’ of the service in which they are provided an understanding of the service user journey and demonstrations of the drug checking equipment. Senior policy makers and politicians, health professionals, researchers, advocates and media as well as people from interstate contemplating establishing drug checking services have completed walk-throughs. In this sense, the service provided a valuable information and an educational role in innovative drug harm reduction policies and practice in Australia.

" At least one interstate government health department requested the service data on an ongoing basis from ACTHD, presumably to inform their own policy work on drug checking.

" The evaluation team received requests from interstate colleagues for the sharing of the service and evaluation data collection tools. The interstate colleagues plan to use this information to support their own work in developing the evaluation of drug checking services when they become available in their own jurisdictions. This exchange of information creates the potential for a minimum dataset in the collection of data from drug checking services as they emerge across Australia.

" Establishment of the Australasian Drug Checking Information Group as a flow-on from the evaluation team’s presentation to, and network-building activity at, the 2022 Darwin APSAD conference. The group involves a consortium of individuals interested in best practices in drug checking across Australia and New Zealand."

"Of those who specified who they were checking for, friends and family were mentioned most frequently (68%), pointing to the importance of drug checking as a relational practice. Due to stigma and criminalization, it is worth noting a possible positive bias to the response of checking for others, as people accessing the service may feel more comfortable admitting they are checking for a friend than themselves. Preliminary research has shown practices of care among friends to be seen in drug checking services [7], and we found this translated to the community setting as testing for friends represented 52% of the time people were checking for others. This demonstrates the care practices of third party checking and the social aspects of using substances, as is the possibility of having a designated person who checks substances for a group who may be using or buying together.

"The inclusion of family members in supporting people who use drugs has been identified as increasing the reach of harm reduction outcomes [10]. Our findings show the supporting role that family members can play through drug checking. In most instances (68%), family members were checking for others only, highlighting how this service can provide a way for families to better understand substances and substance use to support their family members who are using drugs. It provides evidence for drug checking services being an access point to engage with harm reduction, enabling further openness in discussing substances and substance use.

"As community drug checking expands, we see benefits in engaging with families while also considering the challenges of consent and inherent power imbalances in families, such as a parent checking a child’s drugs unknowingly."

"Results from samples expected to be stimulants were divergent between testing groups. Crystal methamphetamine samples tested using take-home drug checking were reported as fentanyl positive more often than on-site samples (27.6% vs. 5.2%). The same pattern was seen for cocaine samples tested using take-home drug checking (17.2% vs. 1.1%). However, the study was underpowered to evaluate equivalence between these testing groups. A small portion of the test strips (3.8%) yielded an unclear or illegible response. It is unclear what the participants did in these cases, but the inclusion of multiple test strips would have allowed for repeat testing.

"Notably, when the results of take-home drug checking were stratified based on previous experience with fentanyl test strips, there was a trend towards a smaller difference between the results of take-home drug checking and on-site drug checking. For opioids, when only results from those who were using fentanyl test strips for the first time were included, there was a difference of 1.6% between take-home drug checking and on-site drug checking. This difference was reduced to 0.6% when only including samples from those who had self-reported prior experience with using fentanyl test strips. Similar results were seen for crystal methamphetamine (28.9% to 15.2%) and cocaine (28.3% to 7.8%)."

"GAO found that 48 jurisdictions (47 states and D.C.) have enacted both Good Samaritan and Naloxone Access laws. Kansas, Texas and Wyoming do not have a Good Samaritan law for drug overdoses but have a Naloxone Access law. The five U.S. territories do not have either type of law. GAO also found that the laws vary. For example, Good Samaritan laws vary in the types of drug offenses that are exempt from prosecution and whether this immunity takes effect before an individual is arrested or charged, or after these events but before trial.

"GAO reviewed 17 studies that provide potential insights into the effectiveness of Good Samaritan laws in reducing overdose deaths or the factors that may contribute to a law’s effectiveness. GAO found that, despite some limitations, the findings collectively suggest a pattern of lower rates of opioid-related overdose deaths among states that have enacted Good Samaritan laws, both compared to death rates prior to a law’s enactment and death rates in states without such laws. In addition, studies found an increased likelihood of individuals calling 911 if they are aware of the laws. However, findings also suggest that awareness of Good Samaritan laws may vary substantially across jurisdictions among both law enforcement officers and the public, which could affect their willingness to call 911."

"This term, which we hope can over time be employed as a keyword in the literature, is intended to foreground children under the age of majority and for whom child rights laws apply in harm reduction theory, policy and practice. Child-centred harm reduction draws attention to the specificities of childhood in harm reduction work. Existing theories of harm reduction may need adaptation to the sociology and psychology of childhood, including the interconnected relationship between parent and child, family-centred care, and attention to children’s rights (see Maynard et al., 2019). Some interventions may not be practical, effective or ethical for children (Watson et al., 2015). Research on existing harm reduction services that work with minors – including those that may not strictly be permitted to do so - may place those children or the service at risk. Issues of consent, identity, agency and maturity, as well as the child’s ‘best interests’ may challenge the assumptions and premises upon which ‘low threshold’ harm reduction services are delivered (Barrett, Petersson, & Turner, 2022). Different legal and human rights standards are engaged, from drug laws to family law to child rights. Child protection laws may require duties of reporting that affect harm reduction service provision and research (ibid). In some cases both parent and child can be legal minors, leading to further challenges and complications regarding assessments of best interests. National, regional and international policy frameworks may need renewed scrutiny through a child-centred harm reduction lens (see for example Barrett, 2015).

"The term is not perfect. For example, ‘child’ may conjure the image of only very young children, when the majority of drug use would involve older adolescents. Few seventeen year-olds would refer to themselves as children. However, those under the age of 18 are legal minors in most contexts, and are ‘children’ for the purposes of child rights. Other terms, such as ‘youth harm reduction’ reproduce the problem of age ranges noted above, while ‘adolescent harm reduction’ omits younger children. ‘Adolescence’ can also extend beyond the age of majority. ‘Paediatric harm reduction’ was considered, but implied an overly medical approach.

"The word ‘centred’ is critical. Our view of child-centred harm reduction extends from neonates to adolescents, with all of the challenges and differing capacities and relationships that arise at these stages of development. Centring the child is key and draws our attention also, for example, to dependent children in adult harm reduction work. We believe that ‘child-centred’ focuses on the specificities of childhood in harm reduction and captures a holistic, rights-based, and person-centred approach."

"Harm reduction is an influential approach to drug policy and practice that ‘encompasses interventions, programmes and policies that seek to reduce the health, social and economic harms of drug use’ (Rhodes & Hedrich, 2010 p. 19). While a universal definition is lacking, harm reduction is distinguished by its focus on incremental positive change regarding targeted harms, which neither presupposes nor precludes abstinence as a goal. NGOs further emphasise a commitment to human rights and social justice, necessitating the separation of drug use harms from drug policy harms, and highlighting the role of policy and legal frameworks as a driver of vulnerability (e.g. HRI, n.d; HRC, n.d). Harm reduction is a cornerstone of HIV and overdose prevention, endorsed by every relevant UN agency in this regard (United Nations, 2019). It is also increasingly influential for other forms of drug use and drug related harms. However, harm reduction has primarily developed around adult drug use, obscuring theoretical, practical, ethical and legal issues pertaining to children and adolescents under the age of majority – both relating to their own use and the effects of drug use among parents or within the family."

"Findings from our study illustrate that many substance use programs do not fit directly into a binary of “harm reduction” or “treatment.” Most of the participating programs in this study reported offering a spectrum of harm reduction and treatment services. Still, SSPs [Syringe Service Programs] were most likely to offer harm reduction services, MOUD [Medications for Opioid Use Disorder] programs were most likely to offer treatment services, and those characterized as offering both MOUD & SSPs were most likely to offer the broadest services. Program clients also did not fit into the supposed binary of “active drug use” vs. “abstinence.” In fact, of the clients who attended MOUD only programs, nearly three quarters reported using non-prescribed drugs in the past week, and more than half reported injecting drugs in the past week; these rates were similar to those reported by clients who attended combined MOUD & SSP programs. Meanwhile, more than 40% of those who attended SSP only programs reported attending some type of drug treatment service in the past month.

"Our results reveal some important incongruencies between services being offered by substance use programs and characteristics and behaviors reported by clients who attend such programs. For example, while three-quarters of MOUD program clients reported using non-prescribed drugs (one-quarter reported using opioids), only two-thirds of these programs offered overdose education or naloxone distribution and one-third offered fentanyl testing or test strips. This is highly concerning given the high prevalence of fentanyl in both the opioid and non-opioid illicit drug supplies [21] and may partly reflect the presence of policies that criminalize possession of fentanyl test strips in some of the sampled states [22]. Moreover, half of clients who attended MOUD programs without SSP or wound care actively injected drugs. While it is possible that these clients seek safe injection supplies elsewhere, a minority (14%) reported visiting an SSP in the past month.

"There were also discrepancies in services offered by SSPs relative to client-reported service utilization. Of clients recruited from SSPs without MOUD, 22% indicated receiving methadone and 8% reported receiving buprenorphine in the past month. This implies clients are either seeking these medications via other service providers or acquiring them on the street, which has been reported to often be easier than enrolling in formal treatment [9, 23, 24]. Roughly half of MOUD programs offered same-day treatment initiation. Additionally, SSP programs were reaching the highest risk population that with the greatest rates of active drug use. Yet, on average, these programs reported having the smallest number of staff and the least available treatment or social services relative to the other programs types. The limited workforce and services offered may reflect the limited budgets often used to operate these programs. Many harm reduction services operate independently from the medical system and are not eligible for insurance reimbursement. Additionally, programs have been historically banned from accessing federal and local funds for SSPs; programs have had to depend on scarce funds acquired a combination of small grants, individual donations, and charitable foundations [4, 25]. The Biden Administration’s 2021 American Rescue Act was the first federal action to allocate targeted funding toward harm reduction services and SSPs [25, 26]. While this was an important step to potentially help scale up these services, local and national resistance and stigma to these programs remains persistent (highlighted by the recent resistance to federal funding sterile pipes [27]). Continued efforts to combat ongoing stigma and political resistance to these programs are needed [25]."

"While cultural and structural differences continue to divide many substance use treatment and harm reduction services, the needs and goals of people who seek these two services may have always been much less distinctive. For example, many who attend substance use treatment continue to use drugs [5]. Similarly, many who attend harm reduction programs seek to engage in treatment at some points [6]. Indeed, clients of SSPs are approximately five times more likely to engage in treatment and three times more likely to stop using drugs than persons who do not access SSPs [7]. In recent decades, harm reduction and treatment goals have become increasingly blurred with the growing uptake of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). In particular, methadone and buprenorphine are used by some with a goal of abstaining from opioid use; for others, MOUD are used to help mitigate withdrawal and overdose risk without abstaining from drug use [8, 9].

"Despite this reality, programs that successfully combine treatment and harm reduction services and principles are often the exception rather than the rule [8, 10, 11]. Yet, the increasing severity of the opioid overdose crisis in North America and the rise in viral and bacterial infections among PWUD [12–14] have led to a recognition of the urgent need to utilize multiple approaches toward the joint goal of reducing drug-related harms [15]. In particular, concerns about the increasingly lethal opioid supply [16] have emphasized the need to use any available evidence-based strategies known to reduce opioid-related overdose mortality. These concerns have encouraged more treatment providers to incorporate harm reduction approaches (e.g., naloxone distribution and overdose education) [17], and harm reduction providers to integrate MOUD as a direct service [18]."

"Our analysis of the characteristics of the 48 Good Samaritan laws found that they differ in the protections they offer to individuals who call for medical assistance for an overdose victim. First, there is variation in whether criminal immunity—an exemption from prosecution—is offered and, if so, for which type of drug offense, such as possessing or delivering drugs in violation of an otherwise applicable drug law. Second, there is variation in when criminal immunity takes effect—the timing can be before an individual would otherwise be arrested and charged as a criminal defendant or after these events but before an individual is prosecuted.

"Finally, because a jurisdiction retains the power to prosecute individuals who do not have criminal immunity, some Good Samaritan laws offer either an affirmative defense at trial or a mitigating factor at sentencing, or both."