I'm leaning towards no. I think it provides a false sense of security. Recreational drugs are not safe, it's Russian roulette, regardless of how 'well made' the drug is. How long will it take for drug manufacturers to find ways to beat the test? They'll be quicker than the company making the tests, that's for sure.
what do you mean "beat the test"?
drug manufacturers manufacture drugs to be sold. nobody will buy drugs if they're rubbish. all manufactured drugs would contain some of the pure drug, it's how cut down it is and what it's cut with that's the issue.
If someone wants to take drugs then s/he will, regardless of how pure it is or whether test kits are available. Instead what i think it would do is encourage some people over the line that perhaps otherwise wouldn't have tried it.
Just because it's "pure" doesn't necessarily make it any less harmful. You can still OD, react badly to the drug etc and still end up harmed or dead.
I understand where you are coming from.
That link I posted says that the majority of users that were asked stated that they wouldn't take the drug if testing revealed that the drug wasn't what they thought/was insufficiently pure etc., and that they would warn other people, so I'm not sure about that argument.
The majority also stated that they would use testing gear if it was available.
Of course if doesn't guarantee that people will make good choices, but I tend to be in the 'if it saves a life it can't be so bad' camp.
I hadn't thought about it giving people a reason to take drugs who normally wouldn't. I'd be interested to know how accurate that is. One reason I never touched pills was because I was terrified of ODing, and I'm not sure that testing kits would allay that fear...
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!