mumble mumble

aidresources:

This report attempts to capture and highlight the Federal agencies’ effort in “mainstreaming” consideration of climate change adaptation across their programs and policies and their leadership role…

From The Globe & Mail:

While the number of HIV-AIDS cases in Canada have risen back to 1982 levels, the biggest shift is in who and where are most effected.

Related:

AIDS Committee of Toronto

Ontario AIDS Network

Toronto People With AIDS Foundation

Smitherman slams Ford over past AIDS comments (May 2010)

In 2006, Ford argued against a $1.5-million AIDS prevention strategy, telling council: “It is very preventable. If you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS probably, that’s the bottom line.”

Reducing HIV spread thru safe injection sites:

On-site heroin urged for chronic addicts - CBC (May 2010)

Vancouver’s supervised injection site providing a safe place for changing lives (interview w/ Russ Maynard, Insite’s program coordinator) (July 21, 2010)

Safe drug injection sites reduce HIV spread - CTV (2005)

Vancouver Coastal Health - Insite - Supervised Injection Site

Vancouver’s INSITE service and other Supervised injection sites: What has been learned from research? - Final report of the Expert Advisory Committee, Prepared for the Hon. Tony Clement, Minister of Health (March 31, 2008)

Injection site for Toronto under study - Toronto Star (Aug 2009)

Do more:

Register today for the Toronto Scotiabank AIDS Walk for Life or sponsor a walker.

katharinec:

The surge of gunbattles, beheadings and kidnappings that has accompanied Mexico’s war on drug cartels is an entirely predictable escalation in violence based on decades of scientific literature, a new study contends.

A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating back 20 years found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada.

katharinec:

Why do the American media avoid discussing these research findings? Why are the opinions of unknowledgeable people in towns like Decatur, Georgia, and Cumberland, Maryland, more meaningful than the results of carefully conducted scientific research? Why is evidence-based medicine abandoned when it comes to drugs? Why is the existence of credible research not even mentioned? The best that was done was to mention that the director of the Insite Program believed that lives were being saved. Not mentioned was the hard scientific evidence amassed to back his position. Why does science not matter when it comes to drug policies?

Read please.

(h/t Addiction Inbox)

abcsoupdot:

“The drug war has been brutal — complete with SWAT teams, tanks, bazookas, grenade launchers, and sweeps of entire neighborhoods — but those who live in white communities have little clue to the devastation wrought. This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, even though studies consistently show that people of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, some studies indicate that white youth are significantly more likely to engage in illegal drug dealing than black youth. Any notion that drug use among African Americans is more severe or dangerous is belied by the data. White youth, for example, have about three times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency room as their African American counterparts.”

—

How the War on Drugs Gave Birth to a Permanent American Undercaste - RaceTalk (via tiredofbeingignored) (via clingtomymouth)

Let’s stop for a second here - don’t white people in America outnumber black people 7-to-1? Shouldn’t then American white youth have 7 times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency as their African American counterparts - if population susceptibility is to be the same? This article doesn’t state whether it 3x as many visits per capita, or 3x as many visits overall.

If it is indeed 3x as many visits overall, then black youth are still making more drug-related hospital visits per capita, since they are 1/7th the white population, but equal 1/3rd the rate of white admissions.

And this my friends is another botched case of statistical reporting without raw figures and ham journalism.

[emphasis added for effect. I’m lacking sensationalist headlines today]

How so? The article was not saying one group is better or worst because they do more drugs. They are making the argument that the drug war disproportionately affects one group and that legislation presented to curb one problem in reality actually further perpetuates the problem. And enforcement is selective.

Let us use your numbers and logic.

# of whites : # of blacks = 7:1

Assuming hospital rates are total and not per capita

drug-related hospital visits - white : black = 3:1

therefore expected ratio of arrested for drug-related offences - white:black = 7/3 : 1

And yet the actual ratio in some states - white:black+brown+other=1:5 to 1:10

You really need a refresher in statistics if you think this doesn’t reflect some inherent bias (intentional or otherwise) on behalf of those responsible for arresting and prosecuting these offenders.

That article also says, “There are more African Americans under correctional control today — in prison or jail, on probation or parole — than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.”

In 1850 America’s population was only 23 million people. It’s over TEN TIMES that. Correspondingly, no shit there are now more black people in correctional facilities. There are also now more gay people, more of latinic origin, and more of everything.

I just don’t see what point you’re trying to make. That this statistic is irrelevant? Fair enough. Of course that doesn’t really take away from any of the other arguments. It’s part of a broader narrative, excerpted from the book. You essentially found one sentence in this article that is irrelevant. Alright. How exactly does it weaken her other arguments?

micek:

Fantastic article on what ‘Scientific Consensus’ means and how we can/should treat it

With the help of communities secreatary John Denham , the British government is setting up an panel of religious leaders to advise on public policy decisions. Over at the Guardian, Anthony Grayling takes this truly bad idea apart with a series of rhetorical questions, e.g.:

And what, Mr Denham, of the rule of law as this will be viewed by your faith advisers? Is each citizen of this country equal before the same law for all, or will injustice and discrimination thrive behind the closed doors of faith-based courts? Are each of the faiths to be allowed exceptions and exemptions – for example, so that any faith school can exclude well-qualified teachers because they do not share the ancient superstition with which a particular school seeks to brainwash small children’s minds?

Also Mr Denham, why is your policy so discriminatory in itself? What of the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, the Mother Goddess worshippers? What of the Druids, the White Witches, the Pagans, the astrologers, the Satanists? Are these not “faith groups” whose outlooks have precisely as much credibility and evidence-base as the Christians and Muslims? Are you going to include them and give them some of our tax money too? Can I start an “I Believe in Fairies” church and can I come to your meetings and get some government hand-outs too? If not, why not?

Source: Why Evolution is True