This sounds analogous to the change we saw in the market in the late 1980s, I believe, with cocaine. From what I understand, the classic cocaine hydrochloride that was sniffed was about $200 a dose, and when crack was developed, it was at something like between $5 and $15 a dose. That's what introduced cocaine to the inner city. It sounds quite analogous.
Switching gears a bit, we've talked about harm reduction, which is something I've always known about, and I really appreciate how much misunderstanding there was about it. A lot of people thought that harm reduction—supervised consumption sites and needle exchanges—enabled or increased use. From my reading of the academic literature, you did not actually increase use of these substances. You just simply decreased the harm with them.
I understand that there's very good data that supervised consumption sites do lead to improved outcomes with opioids. Is there evidence of the same benefit or a similar benefit in regard to meth?