Overview
Drug checking services have been shown to reduce the risk of overdose by providing people with information on what is in drugs bought outside of pharmacies. State drug paraphernalia laws can limit access to drug checking initiatives by prohibiting possessing or distributing anything used for “testing” or “analyzing” drugs. Changing state law to clarify that comprehensive drug checking services are legal could allow this important public health intervention to make a greater impact in reducing overdose death and drug-related harm.
Historically, there has been no way for people to know what, exactly, is in drugs bought outside of pharmacies. This lack of knowledge leads to increased risk of overdose and other negative outcomes. Contaminants including fentanyl are now present in the illicit drug supply throughout the United States, driving a more than 750 percent increase from 2015 to 2023 in non-methadone synthetic opioid-related overdose deaths. Other adulterants such as xylazine and medetomidine have also appeared in many areas of the country. Helping people determine what is in the drugs they intend to consume, often called “drug checking,” can be an impactful harm reduction intervention.
Drug checking research has shown that people often change their drug use when provided with information about what is in their drugs. Test strips, reagent tests, and more advanced equipment like FTIR machines or mass spectrometers are all used in comprehensive drug checking programs. While these methods vary in both comprehensiveness and expense, all provide information to a person about what is in the drugs they are considering using.
State drug paraphernalia laws can limit access to drug checking initiatives by prohibiting possessing or distributing anything used for “testing” or “analyzing” drugs. Over the last few years, many states have modified these laws to remove barriers to some or all drug checking equipment. However, these laws typically only permit possession of the equipment used to perform drug checking, and do not explicitly provide protection from arrest and prosecution for possession of the drugs to be tested. Without these protections, the impact of drug checking on communities will not reach its full potential. As of January 2026, only three states—California, Vermont, and Massachusetts—have passed laws that permit both providers and clients to possess drugs to be checked, while Washington and Oregon provide protections for providers only.
California’s law is currently the most comprehensive of these laws. It permits the possession of injection or smoking equipment when obtaining drug checking services and provides a broad set of protections for staff of the drug checking program. Participants engaged in obtaining drug checking services are also immune from detention, arrest, prosecution, violation of parole, probation, or any form of community supervision, civil, disciplinary, or administrative action, forfeiture of property, or referral to ICE for possession of drugs. Further, the law forbids the collection of a participant’s personal information except when a provider is using the information to share results, after which it must be destroyed immediately and may not be shared with law enforcement.
Many states that have not yet passed comprehensive drug checking laws are currently providing those services via health departments and other entities. The rapid adoption of laws decriminalizing fentanyl test strips and other drug checking equipment shows that states have the ability to move fast when a public health intervention is needed. Changing state law to clarify that comprehensive drug checking services are legal by providing protections that make participants more likely to choose to use the service could allow this important public health intervention to make a greater impact in reducing overdose death and drug-related harm.
This post was written by Amy Lieberman, J.D., Deputy Director, Harm Reduction, Network for Public Health Law.
The Network promotes public health and health equity through non-partisan educational resources and technical assistance. These materials provided are provided solely for educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. The Network’s provision of these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other person and is subject to the Network’s Disclaimer. Support for the Network is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed in this post do not represent the views of (and should not be attributed to) RWJF.
