tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post6364692301361661522..comments2008-10-09T16:52:41.483-04:00Adminnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post-66022416221758509242008-10-09T16:47:00.000-04:002008-10-09T16:47:00.000-04:00

Sam.....<BR/><BR/>RE: veto from staff<BR/><BR/>..do not underestimate the expertise of the " officers" ( who do not like to be called "guards)<BR/><BR/>...there are many public health measures that would help inmates that are freely available "outside"...and to do a study on a " known value" is double-dipping.<BR/><BR/>Probably more significant than any other point is the " message transmission"

sharonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07118658299069243822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post-59044725383394456222008-10-09T16:34:00.000-04:002008-10-09T16:34:00.000-04:00

The Australian study was halted because of opposition from guards. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have shown a public-health benefit for inmates. In any case, wouldn't it be worth knowing if that were true or false as opposed to simply canceling the pilot and holding back the results?

Sam Solomonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04765527434756411063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post-79400459127610694932008-10-09T15:18:00.000-04:002008-10-09T15:18:00.000-04:00

RE: prison-based tattoo study<BR/><BR/>Have a look at this document:<BR/><BR/>http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:KgePajMtcxUJ:www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_12_180607/lev11089_fm.html+Prison-based+Tattoo+Pilot+Study&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=3<BR/><BR/>You have the Canadian argument noted &quot;to perform up to Australian standards&quot; .... and you have the Australian declaration that the

sharonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07118658299069243822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post-79903628904717781382008-10-08T13:40:00.000-04:002008-10-08T13:40:00.000-04:00

Interesting........<BR/><BR/>..and the distribution of " crack pipes"<BR/> ... what jurisdiction quashed that?<BR/><BR/>... and how is it jurisdictionally or ethically more relevant than the distribution of needles?

sharonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07118658299069243822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post-48923194612745645822008-10-08T12:54:00.000-04:002008-10-08T12:54:00.000-04:00

Thanks for your comment, Sharon.<BR/><BR/>I want to address your assertion that the UN claims Insite is illegal, because there is a great deal of misinformation out there on this matter.<BR/><BR/>First of all, the International Narcotics Control Board -- the UN-affiliated agency that has criticized Insite -- is not "the UN." It describes itself as "the independent and quasi-judicial control organ

Sam Solomonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04765527434756411063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-475000734620346734.post-72047308436306411122008-10-08T10:12:00.000-04:002008-10-08T10:12:00.000-04:00

I guess we could entitle this:<BR/><BR/> "How to shoot YOURSELF in the foot"<BR/><BR/>First: Nail it down<BR/><BR/> ... in case you panic and change your mind at the last minute... the target will be secure ....while you run in circles...<BR/><BR/>Second: Cut it off<BR/><BR/>After you shoot it ..... so you can repair the surgical stump ...and not bleed to death<BR/><BR/>Third : Throw away the

sharonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07118658299069243822noreply@blogger.com