Buying MDMA pills Rhodes

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Buying MDMA pills Rhodes

Our effective and proven criminal defense strategies have helped many of our clients stay out of jail, avoid a felony convictions, and oftentimes leave the criminal justice system with no criminal record at all. Charged with Drug Possession in Rhode Island? Contact the experienced drug defense attorneys at Marin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm for a free consultation. Call Now! We have experience representing clients facing a wide variety of simple possession of a controlled substance charges including the possession of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, fentanyl, tetrahydrocannabinol, xanax, adderall, oxycontin, oxycodone, and dozens of other controlled substances. Our drug defense strategies have a proven track record of success. Let us put them to work for you. Those charged with drug crimes face significant penalties in the short and medium term, and potentially irreparable and unknowable harm in the future with a drug conviction on their record. Being saddled with a felony conviction can make it more difficult to get a job, get into school, secure a loan, purchase a firearm, or travel. At Marin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm , we are dedicated to providing aggressive and personalized legal representation for individuals facing drug possession charges in Rhode Island. When you choose us to represent you, you can trust that we will:. Our goal is to secure the best possible outcome for your case—whether that involves reducing charges, obtaining a dismissal, or achieving an acquittal at trial. We understand that a drug possession conviction can carry serious consequences, including jail time, fines, and a permanent criminal record. We are committed to fighting for your rights with skill, determination, and dedication. Contact us today for a free consultation at The legal system provides all sorts of avenues of how to fight a drug possession case or work towards a successful resolution. These include, but are not limited to: the Adult Drug Treatment Court, which can provide monitoring and counseling for those afflicted with drug addiction. The Superior Court diversion program, which works to keep the defendant out of the criminal justice system and work towards getting the case dismissed from their criminal record. They also include attacking the case itself. For instance, was evidence obtained or seized illegally or improperly by the police? Was the substance properly tested? Are there any affirmative defenses the prevent the case from even being prosecuted at all? The answer to the question is not an easy one and is different for every case, but it all starts with the same thing: hiring a smart, capable attorney to help you through it. With the exception of Marijuana, possession of any schedule I-V controlled substance is a felony and can carry up to three years in prison for a first offense. Those penalties can double and triple with subsequent or repeat convictions so it is important to have an experienced attorney by your side defending you and your case. A controlled substance is a substance listed in Rhode Island General Laws section Any drug that is outlawed outright or requires a prescription to possess is a scheduled I-V controlled substance. The schedule rates drugs based on medical use and likelihood of abuse, but possession of any and all drugs in the schedule could lead to criminal charges. The question of whether or not a controlled substance is meant for personal use or whether it is meant to be sold or distributed to others is a question of fact, and is largely answered by the arresting police. The answer depends largely on the type of controlled substance; the quantity; how it is packaged; and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. If you have been overcharged or wrongfully or illegally charged, you need a lawyer in your corner to help you fight for your rights and your freedom. Even though some drugs are legal to possess and use with a valid prescription, police will often arrest people if they are in possession of scheduled controlled substances if they are not in their proper containers or you do not have the prescription on you. Simple possession of a prescription controlled substance carries the same potential penalties as possession of illicit substances such as heroin, cocaine, or LSD, so it is extremely important that you have an experienced and capable attorney to handle your case. While the list of controlled substances numbers in the hundreds and ny schedule 1 through 5 controlled substance can lead to a charge, some are more common than others. The most common substances include: benzodiazepines such as Xanax, klonopin, and valium; stimulants such as Adderall and dextroamphetamine; and painkillers such as fentanyl, Vicodin, Percocet, and morphine; suboxone and methadone; anabolic steroids; and ambien. Yes, you can be charged with simple possession for even a single pill or suboxone strip. The law against simple possession of a schedule I-V controlled substance does not differentiate between quantities. For instance, a charge of possession of one Adderall pill carries the same potential penalties as possession of an eighth of an ounce of cocaine or heroin. Therefore, having an attorney who fights on your behalf and distinguishes you and your case from the charge you are facing is of the utmost importance. As society as a whole has become more accepting of marijuana, the laws surrounding marijuana possession have also become somewhat more forgiving. However, if you have already received two marijuana citations, possession of any quantity of marijuana can be charged as a misdemeanor criminal offense. The law surrounding marijuana is murky and ever changing, and having a professional and experienced criminal defense attorney by your side is essential to fighting your case. A pre-arraignment conference date, also known as a PAC date is given to felony cases that are still undergoing the felony screening process. Depending on what county you are in, you may or may not need to attend that date. It is possible that nothing will happen on the first, or even the second and third PAC dates, but it is important to have an attorney so that you are thoroughly prepared when the state is ready to proceed with the charges against you. The pretrial services unit is a bail monitoring unit operated out of the District Court. When a defendant is referred to Pretrial Services at their arraignment, they are required to schedule a meeting with a pretrial services officer who will determine what services and conditions that defendant needs while on bail. For instance, Pretrial Services may require a defendant undergo a substance abuse assessment or continued counseling, or mental health treatment. Like any criminal charge, the outcome depends on numerous facts and circumstances. It is often possible to have the charges reduced to a misdemeanor or dismissed outright. Each case is defended differently, and it is important to have a skilled attorney in your corner to navigate those differences towards the best possible outcome. For instance, a passenger in a vehicle may be in constructive possession of drugs found in the car, regardless of where they are located. Unlike some jurisdictions, Rhode Island does not impose a mandatory minimum sentence for drug convictions. If you have been arrested and charged in Rhode Island with simple possession of a controlled substance, it is important to seek experienced legal advice as soon as possible. Our experienced drug possession defense attorneys will meet with you and confidentially discuss the facts of your case, any legal or constitutional defenses you may have, and your best strategy moving forward. Contact us today for a no obligation drug possession defense strategy session. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter. Also, the Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer as an expert or specialist in any field of practice. Rhode Island Drug Possession Lawyers. Click for a Free Case Review. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content. Examine the legality of the search, seizure, and arrest , ensuring that your constitutional rights were upheld. If law enforcement violated your rights, we will work to suppress any illegally obtained evidence. Develop a strategic defense plan , exploring potential defenses such as illegal search and seizure, mistaken identity, or lack of intent to possess the substance. Negotiate with prosecutors to reduce or dismiss charges when possible, while always preparing your case for trial to ensure that your rights are fully protected. Provide clear and compassionate communication , ensuring that you are kept informed at every step of the legal process and receive the support you need during this challenging time. How can the drug lawyers at the Marin, Barrett, and Murphy Law Firm help me fight my drug possession charge? Frequently Asked R. What is simple drug possession? Can I be charged even though it is a legal prescription drug? What are the most common legally prescribed drugs that lead to simple possession charges? What are the most common illegal drugs? What if I only had a few pills, can I still be charged? What about Marijuana possession charges in Rhode Island? What is the Pretrial Services Unit? Can a R. What are the mandatory minimum sentences for controlled substance possession?

The protective effect of trusted dealers against opioid overdose in the U.S.

Buying MDMA pills Rhodes

Official websites use. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Opioid overdose has become the leading cause of death among adults between 25 and 54 years old in the U. The purpose of this study is to explore the social and relational factors that shape the current opioid overdose epidemic. Between January and February , adults in Providence, Rhode Island, who use opioids were recruited to complete structured survey and semi-structured interview about the social context of their substance use. A total of 92 individuals completed a survey and an interview. Of those, 51 individuals Eric a pseudonym is a low-level heroin dealer. One day, not long ago, Eric came home to see a news story on a local television station about an overdose victim found and resuscitated in a public parking lot nearby. The newscast reported that fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid, was present in the drugs this individual had used and was likely the cause of their overdose. Eric was shocked to recognize the overdose victim on the news as one of his own clients. This is how Eric learned that the heroin he was currently selling was adulterated with fentanyl. She spoke in detail about the conversation she had with Eric when he called her to warn her about what he saw on the news. He recommended she throw away the drugs she had just bought from him in light of this newly discovered fentanyl contamination. Allegedly, Eric even offered to replace the drugs they threw out with a new batch of ostensibly fentanyl-free heroin at a discounted price. They need you for that money. So, there are some dealers that actually care. Following this insight, research into the social-epidemiological dynamics of opioid overdose throughout the world have paid close attention to structural and individual-behavioral drivers of negative health outcomes Butt et al. Further, the ability of social relationships and social network dynamics to shape health outcomes on a population-level has been well established by recent research on sexually-transmitted HIV Brennan et al. Research exploring the impact of social and relational factors on overdose, however, remains sparser. In the past few years, a growing number of mixed-methods research studies have successfully contextualized different features of the U. Little research on the current, fentanyl-fueled opioid overdose epidemic, however, has explored in-depth the role of socio-relational factors, such as the nature of the relationship between Eric and Sandy and the sense of mutual obligation they feel towards each other, in shaping the health outcomes of people who use drugs. Early substance use research in the U. To the best of our knowledge, however, only two studies conducted during the current epidemic have explicitly analyzed the role of socio-relational factors in shaping health outcomes. The most recent of these, which was conducted among a predominantly African-American cohort of people who use drugs in urban North Carolina, produced two important findings: 1 relying on trusted or familiar dealers was as a commonly reported fentanyl-avoidance strategy used by individuals who preferred not to consume fentanyl-adulterated drugs and 2 participants reported encountering fentanyl-adulterated heroin—despite not seeking fentanyl—when they were unable to purchase drugs from dealers whom they knew and trusted Rhodes et al. Additionally, an earlier study conducted among a predominantly white cohort of people who use drugs in Providence, Rhode Island, found that some participants described their overdose risk as directly increased or directly decreased as a result of actions allegedly taken by their dealers, suggesting that the nature of consumer-supplier relationships may differentially impact overdose risk in the illicit drug market Carroll et al. The purpose of this study is to elaborate and build upon these previously generated hypotheses. We aim to explore the social and relational factors that shape the current opioid overdose epidemic within a population of people who use drugs in Providence, Rhode Island. Specifically, we aim to describe the interpersonal relationships between people who use drugs and the individuals who act as their drug suppliers whether regularly or irregularly in order to consider how these social ties and the culturally-reinforced mutual obligations between them shape overdose risk. Put another way, this study asks how we can make sense of people like Eric, the heroin dealer who warned his clients about fentanyl contamination in his drugs, and the potential public health impact of the relationship he has built with Sandy by considering these supplier-consumer relationships through an ethnographic lens. The illicit opioid market in the U. The history of current trends ostensibly begins in the early s, when Colombian-sourced heroin—remarkably cheaper and purer than heroin originating elsewhere—began appearing in the U. Closely on the heels of the growing market share held by Colombian-sourced heroin came another significant trend: a massive growth in opioid prescribing in the U. Many people who used opioids at that time did not use diverted prescription opioids exclusively. In essence, this meant that commercially manufactured OxyContin, then an extremely popular product in the U. Heroin—cheaper, purer, and more prevalent than it had ever been thanks to the glut of Colombian-sourced product—quickly became the substitute for many who could no longer access OxyContin. By , ethnographic research conducted in several U. Between and , heroin overdose deaths doubled in 28 U. In , the State Health Laboratory and the State Medical Examiner of Rhode Island—where the study presented in this paper was conducted—reported a series of unusual deaths to the U. Ten decedents who had experienced a fatal overdose tested positive for the synthetic opioid acetyl fentanyl in postmortem toxicology screening U. This was the first time that a fentanyl analog not commercially available i. Fentanyl-related fatalities began to appear in neighboring Massachusetts in Somerville et al. By , 47, opioid overdose deaths were identified in the U. In the age of fentanyl, navigating product uncertainty in the illicit opioid market in Rhode Island—as elsewhere—presents many challenges. In Rhode Island, specifically, individuals who use opioids have reported adopting a variety of pseudo-strategies for detecting and avoiding fentanyl-contaminated drugs checking for taste, smell, color when cooked in solution, etc. While it may have once been the case that adding inert or neutral cut to illicit opioid products and thereby decreasing their potency was neither universal nor systematic in the s Coomber, , broad consensus has emerged in the age of fentanyl that products are frequently adulterated—either with neutral cutting agents, or with powerful synthetic opioids, or both—at unknown stages in the supply chain Ciccarone et al. It is well established that product source, product purity, and the relative openness or closedness of a local drug market varies geographically between—and sometimes within—different parts of the U. Mars et al. This variability, in turn, shapes the local risk environment for overdose Mars et al. These strips only became widely available to individuals who use drugs in Rhode Island in Miller, , more than a year after this present study was completed. Thus, participants in this study were limited in their ability to identify fentanyl in the local drug supply through the use of fentanyl test strips, reliant on their own physical senses and the information that passed between consumers and, occasionally, their suppliers, to make consumer choices—choices that were, at best, only partially informed. Subject recruitment for this study has been described in detail elsewhere Carroll et al. In brief, individuals who were at least 18 years of age, resided in Rhode Island, and had engaged in the use of an illicit opioid or diverted prescription opioid in the previous 30 days by self-report at the time of recruitment were eligible to participate. Recruitment took place between January and February at harm reduction programs, emergency departments, and other community-based organizations targeting at-risk populations throughout the city of Providence, Rhode Island. Participants in this study consented to an anonymous survey and a semi-structured interview \[with J. The anonymous survey was designed to collect demographic information, substance use behaviors, treatment history, past experience with overdose, and suspected exposure to fentanyl in the past year. The interview format was intentionally developed to be flexible; the interviewer could diverge from the semi-structured questions to discuss new or unanticipated topics brought into the conversation by the participant, and new topics broached by participants could be used to inform the nature of open-ended questions in future interviews. Descriptive statistics were generated from survey data to describe the study population. Interview recordings were transcribed and subsequently analyzed \[by J. Also described in detail elsewhere Carroll et al. Conducting data collection and analysis simultaneously allows for the generation, testing, and refinement of hypotheses in the field. The significance of the risk or protection that drug suppliers may confer upon their clients in shaping vulnerability to overdose was a hypothesis generated mid-way through the data-collection process. As a result, study participants who were recruited, consented, and interviewed after the generation of this hypothesis were explicitly prompted to discuss their relationship with various drug suppliers. Participants recruited and interviewed prior to the generation of this hypothesis, by contrast, were not given such prompts, as their relevance was not yet recognized by the study team. A post-hoc review of pre-hypothesis interviews revealed that some participants did discuss their drug suppliers and how their relationships with those suppliers impacted their risk of harm despite not being explicitly prompted to do so; others, however, did not. Once data collection had concluded, all transcripts were re-evaluated and central findings discussed for merit by all members of the study team \[J. Core concepts were further explored through recursive coding exercises within those thematic concepts \[by J. The findings presented here were isolated in these final stages of analysis. This research protocol and all amendments to that protocol made throughout the study period were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island. A total of 92 individuals completed a survey and an interview for this study. Of those, 33 The remaining 14 participants either reported intermittent use or were missing this data on the frequency of opioid consumption on their survey form. No significant differences in preference for heroin or prescription opioids were found between male-and female-identifying participants or between white and non-white participants. A subset of 51 individuals This includes a participants who were directly asked to describe their relationship with their dealer following the generation of this hypotheses and b those participants who organically spoke about their dealers without being prompted to do so prior to hypothesis generation. See study methods for more detail. About half of the participants in this study reported meeting their primary dealer through mutual participation in the drug economy. The following description from a something white woman who lived in a Providence suburb is typical of this pattern:. Respondent: Like I mean because first we had someone that had to, it was like the middle man, he had to call them. And then finally we got their number. I mean at least for a year. Respondent: No. It was like someone else got it from that person. Though this process of relationship development was described by other participants, few were as specific as the above participant about the length of time required to develop that mutual trust. Thus, it is hard to know if this experience is typical in that sense. Some participants reported multiple axes of social intimacy with their primary dealers, regardless of how they and that primary dealer first met. I go to his house, you know, with his family, they know my family and everything. One of them is my best friend, like my brother. Several participants reported that their dealer was indifferent to the presence of fentanyl in the drug supply they were selling or were likely to outright lie about its presence. An African-American man in his 60s who has been a daily heroin user for several decades offered the most pessimistic view:. However, the large majority of participants spoke about their primary dealers going out of their way to alert clients to the presence of fentanyl or even to avoid selling fentanyl-contaminated product completely. Some reported, just as Sandy did described in the introduction , that their dealer explicitly refuses to sell fentanyl and would never knowingly do so. One man in his mids insisted, confidently, that this was the case with his primary dealer:. Interviewer: Does your guy deal to other people? Like does he have some type of business? Respondent: No, he only does this once a while. He just deals to me and maybe two or three other guys. Interviewer: Have you ever had an opportunity to talk to him about fentanyl and dope and the quality of the products you…. This individual could offer no first-hand knowledge of how their primary dealer gained such detailed knowledge about the chemical content of their drug supply, yet reported a high level of certainty that this work was, somehow, someway, being done on his behalf. Other participants who reported their primary dealer will not knowingly sell fentanyl also stated explicitly that their dealer employs a reliable method of some kind for detecting fentanyl in their supply. Aside from these instances, though, no participants were able to describe or identify any concrete mechanism to detect the presence or absence of fentanyl employed by their dealers. Respondent: Yeah. He never told me what it is. Interviewer: What do you think he would do if a batch ever turned up as fentanyl? And he knows what they do. In contrast, most participants simply relied on faith, buttressing that faith with circumstantial evidence that they found significant. For example, an Hispanic man in his early 40s reported buying heroin from an individual who, he claims, was high enough in the drug supply chain to control the quality of their product:. So I just stay with him. Though a few participants said that they would only buy heroin from one person—insisting that they would rather abstain than buy from someone else less trusted—most reported having several contacts available, which they would activate if their primary supplier had no product or was for some reason unreachable. You need 3 guys. This was illustrated by a recent experience recounted by a white man in his 20s:. Respondent: I almost overdosed. I kind of had to be smacked around a little bit and woken up, but the kid that I was running with likes \[fentanyl\]. A white man in his 30s described the situation as follows:. You know, a lot of stuff can happen, you know? As he and others described, when buying from a less familiar dealer, the drugs one acquires may have passed through a different set of hands on its way down to the consumer. This point was made quite explicitly by a white man in his 60s who was recruited for this study while in a hospital only a few hours after he experienced an accidental opioid overdose. I have another alternative that I use. The number 1 guy is a lot safer to deal with. Because using the small quantity that I used and to overdose on it, it probably was cut with fentanyl, which caused me to overdose. Relatedly, eight individuals from the full cohort of 92 who participated in an interview for this study were recruited from the emergency department of a local hospital after experiencing a non-fatal opioid overdose, including the man quoted above. Half of those reported being intermittent users, typically having very limited exposure to opioids. They all attributed their overdose to poor decision making that led to their uncharacteristic use of opioids in that event. The other overdose survivors interviewed in the hospital emergency department reported using heroin regularly. Relatively few women in this study reported having socially intimate, trusting relationships with their primary dealers. Yet, those who did spoke at length about the ethos of mutual care that developed out of what began as the most impersonal business relationships. Sandy described her connection with Eric—and with some of the other trusted individuals from whom she buys heroin—as some of the most familiar and trusting relationships in her life. We know where they live. You know, we got to that level. They know our lives. We get to know them. And a different level. When you see this person sometimes three times a day, you become friends with them. You talk to your dealers more than your parents. You know what I mean? Are you safe? Are you all right? Respondent: Check everybody out. Make sure that we got back to the car. Make sure no cops are around, like snooping around, stuff like that. Another white woman, in her late 20s, claimed that her dealer would sometimes sell heroin that contained fentanyl, but reported that this person could be counted on to be honest about whether fentanyl was present in any given batch. More than this, though, she reported that her dealer had come to her to obtain the overdose-reversing drug naloxone. She said that he, knowing that she had been trained to reverse overdoses and had received a naloxone rescue kit from a local syringe services program, called her one night to assist with an overdose he was witnessing:. And the kid, my dealer called me saying that he went out and I could hear him gasping. Excuse me. And then I rubbed his chest and he came through…. Interviewer: …And the person that you buy from was, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. So like you were doing whatever you were doing—. Interviewer: And your dealer was with this person \[who overdosed\]. Respondent: Uh-huh. Interviewer: Was the person who overdosed someone you already knew? Were you kind of like —. Respondent: Because the night before that, I had just taught him how to use Narcan. And instead of going looking for that, I had him bring me right to \[my apartment\], because I knew I could get it there. Interviewer: And so was the person in overdose transported to \[your apartment\] or were they already at \[your apartment\]? Respondent: …He really, yeah, and he just asked me \[again\] this morning. At the time that this interview was recorded, the law had been in effect for nearly 9 months. Participants of color—especially women of color—are statistically under-represented in the subset of individuals included in this analysis. Of those who were included in that subset, however, several reported having no primary dealer and, consequently, little control over the content or quality of the drugs they purchase. A man in his 40s who reported using opioids typically prescription medications 3—4 times per week on average—one of the few African-American men recruited for this study—reported product inconsistencies and framed those reports in a way that signaled a low level of trust with the person from whom he was buying. Respondent: Not really, no. No, kind of whoever I bump into. Respondent: Oh yeah. Nowadays you do more than ever. Another non-white participant, a Native American man in his late 30s who reported using heroin 5—6 days per week on average, similarly reported having no reliable contacts with whom it would be possible to build a meaningful relationship by describing a recent heroin purchase. Interviewer: Would you be willing to walk me through the purchase that you made a week ago? Where you went, what you did, how you found the person kind of — Not exactly where you went, but you know what I mean. Respondent: A week ago I felt like I wanted some drugs. So, I walked down to an area where a lot of people were at that I would know. Like \[this place\], for instance, or whatever. When you see a lot of people out there, usually trying to buy drugs and things like that. Certain places are infamous for them people using drugs out there. Interviewer: Is that consistent? Does that consistently work? Is that a good strategy for you? Several women in this study all white and a number of men endorsed the idea that dealers, in general, cannot be trusted to tell the truth, let alone act in their best interest. The sample of non-white participants included in this study is very small, thus limiting the ability to draw conclusions about race versus less frequent substance use as a determining factor in shaping social relationships; however, it bears mentioning that descriptions of extreme social isolation in the drug market, such as those immediately above, were only shared by male-identifying participants of color. The findings of this study suggest that, for many people who use drugs in Providence, Rhode Island, maintaining long-term relationships with trusted dealers is a key strategy for reducing the risk of substance use-related harm. Though not universal, a sizable number of participants reported typical behaviors from their dealers that align with the goals of consumer protection i. In other words, some people who use opioids maintain generally positive relationships with their dealers, and those relationships appear to be protective against overdose as well as conducive to safer substance use behaviors. The findings of this study also reveal that access to these potentially protective consumer-supplier relationships is not universal. Though the sampling method and the sample size of this cohort precludes any meaningful correlation analysis, several trends in the data bear explicit mention. First, male-identifying participants were much more likely than female-identifying participants to report a close relationship with their primary dealer with roots in a pre-existing friendship. Whatever the cause, it is possible that women are likely to face additional barriers to trust and social intimacy in these relationships—not least of which because they are more likely to need to build those relationships from scratch with each new supplier they meet. Second, though few people in this cohort reported having no meaningful relationships with suppliers, typically relying on the ability to buy from strangers or poorly-known acquaintances when buying drugs, the concentration of these reports among male-identifying participants of color especially in a state like Rhode Island whose population is predominantly of white race suggest that these individuals may be vulnerable to social isolation and, subsequently, greater risk of opioid-related harm than their white counterparts. Further, this study predominantly included individuals who were already well connected to and regularly receiving services from a syringe services program or other community support organizations that distribute safer injection supplies and provide services with a harm reduction approach. The individuals included in this study, many of whom appear to face a lower risk of overdose thanks, in part, to their supplier, have likely also significantly reduced their risk of overdose through receipt of harm reduction services. It is conceivable that reliable receipt of such services is an indicator of the social support networks that many of the participants in this study already enjoy. In other words, it is possible that individuals who have fostered deeper relationships with harm reduction staff may be more likely to have also fostered deeper relationships with their suppliers—using the same risk mitigation strategy in multiple domains of their personal lives. If this is, indeed, the case, then structural barriers to safer injection supplies and social barriers to trusted consumer-supplier relationships would likely have synergistic effects—amplifying both the risk of infectious disease and the risk of overdose among some populations while jointly reducing those risks in others. Our findings are congruent with those found in the North Carolina study Rhodes et al. Participants in that study also reported using trusted dealers as a personal fentanyl-avoidance and overdose-prevention strategy. Importantly, the study presented here also lends support to two conclusions put forward by the authors of the North Carolina study. Many people in both studies reported buying and selling from friends, from individuals who also use, or from individuals whom they often use with. Second, the findings of both studies imply that removing access to trusted dealers may put clients who rely on those dealers for their fentanyl avoidance and overdose prevention effects at immediate risk of overdose. Indeed, for many individuals in this study, the inability to access a trusted supplier was reported as the specific event that precipitated their most recent overdose. The policy implications of these findings are significant. Put bluntly, arresting a dealer may directly contribute to overdose within their client population. Without such understanding, good-faith attempts to disrupt macro-level drivers of the opioid-overdose epidemic police sweeps, dealer take-downs, sudden pain clinic closures, etc. In the context of such disruptions, at a minimum, action should be taken to coordinate with public health interventions to reduce the risk of unintended consequences Carroll et al. Further, the Rhode Island legislature joined numerous other U. The full impacts of these prosecutions on individuals who use drugs in Rhode Island and the relationships upon which they rely to navigate an uncertain drug market remain unknown, though many have suggested that further criminalization through these laws are likely to have little impact on substance use other than hindering 9—1—1 calls during an overdose Peterson et al. Nevertheless, mixed-methods research indicates that substance use and illicit drug distribution cannot be effectively deterred through increased threat sanctions and arrests Bailey, ; Friedman et al. Drug induced homicide laws should, therefore, be thought of not as deterrence strategies but as selective pressures that change the shape of the drug market. For individuals who rely on trusted suppliers for survival in an increasingly deadly drug market, this market pressures produced by this law—ostensibly enacted in their name—may simply serve to disrupt the one lifelines they currently have. These findings should be interpreted with certain study limitations in mind. Data collection was carried out in a single urban center—Providence, Rhode Island—at a time when fentanyl was still a relatively new feature of the local drug market. This data may not be representative of other regions with different populations or different historical changes in the drug supply. The individuals who participated in this study were predominantly recruited through direct service points and may not be representative of other people at risk of overdose who are from different i. Further, no demographic information was collected from participants about their primary or secondary dealers. Thus, this study is unable to assess generational differences among dealers especially different social norms between older and younger—or more experienced and less experienced—dealers. Nor can this study elaborate how risk environments faced by people who use drugs may differ according to whether or not their primary dealer also uses drugs. Finally, female-identified participants included in this qualitative study were almost exclusively white. Based on a review of the history of data collection activities, this discrepancy appears to have resulted due to an unanticipated confluence of sampling strategies, selection of recruitment locations, and timing of hypothesis generation. Regardless of the cause, female-identified participants of color are notably under-represented in this analysis. Evidence-based prevention strategies that are based on an awareness of—or even designed to harness—the positive and protective relationships that people who use drugs have already constructed for themselves are likely merited. Policy responses to the opioid-overdose epidemic should be organized around proven harm reduction and overdose prevention strategies, but, as this study indicates, there may be merit in considering the impact of those approaches on networks of people who use drugs, not simply on individuals. This research has been facilitated in part evaluation support provided to the state of Rhode Island by the U. As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Int J Drug Policy. Published in final edited form as: Int J Drug Policy. The protective effect of trusted dealers against opioid overdose in the U. Find articles by Jennifer J Carroll. Providence, RI , United States. Find articles by Josiah D Rich. Find articles by Traci C Green. Issue date Apr. PMC Copyright notice. The publisher's version of this article is available at Int J Drug Policy. Hawaiian or Pac. Open in a new tab. Declaration of Competing Interest None. Similar articles. Add to Collections. Create a new collection. Add to an existing collection. Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again. Add Cancel.

Buying MDMA pills Rhodes