Dublin appears to have performed very well as compared to various scenarios for COVID-19 mortality amongst homeless and drug using populations. The experience, if borne out by further research, provides important lessons for policy discussions on the pandemic, as well as broader lessons about pragmatic responses to these key client groups irrespective of COVID-19. The overarching lesson seems that when government policy is well coordinated and underpinned by a science-driven and fundamentally pragmatic approach, morbidity and mortality can be reduced. Within this, the importance of strategic clarity and delivery, housing, lowered thresholds to methadone provision, Benzodiazepine (BZD) provision and Naloxone availability were key determinants of policy success. Further, this paper argues that the rapid collapse in policy barriers to these interventions that COVID-19 produced should be secured and protected while further research is conducted.

Introduction:In treating accident victims, actions by the Emergency Medical Personnel (EMP) at the scene may be the difference between life or death, full recovery or permanent disability. Development of selected profiles based on locale of services, tenure, and paramedic certification will provide valuable insight into the diversity within the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) profession. Not only will these profiles enable administrators to improve their recruitment, training, and retention of the emergency medical workforce, it potentially could enhance the quality of health care in the community.Population:Emergency medical personnel attending a statewide conference in Texas in late 1996 (n = 425).Hypotheses:1) There is no difference between the profiles of urban and rural emergency medical personnel; 2) There is no difference between the profiles of urban EMP with <9 years of experience and those with ≥9 years of experience; 3) There is no difference between the profiles of rural EMP with <9 years of experience and those with ≥9 years of experience. 4) There is no difference between the profiles of urban EMP with paramedic certification and those without certification; and 5) There is no difference between the profiles of rural EMP with paramedic certification and those without certification.Methods:EMP attending the conference completed 425 survey instruments measuring five demographic features, five work-related features, and two psychological features. Survey instruments were included in each registrant's conference package. Completed surveys were deposited anonymously in labeled receptacles throughout the statewide conference site. Data collection ceased at the end of the conference. Discriminant analysis identified distinct profiles for the urban and rural EMP.Results:The urban EMP, more than rural subjects, was younger (mean = 36 years), more likely to be compensated 100% for their services, had a higher level of education (mean = 13.8 years), and reported a lower level of burnout. Urban EMP with <9 years of experience tended to be younger, male, married, and reported less burnout. Urban paramedics were more likely to be compensated 100% for their services, and had achieved a higher level of education. The rural EMP with <9 years of experience were less likely to be paramedic, reported lower burnout scores, and was younger. The rural EMP without paramedic certification was more likely to be a volunteer, and have had fewer years of service.Conclusions:In Texas, locale of service (urban or rural), length of tenure as an EMP (>9 years), and paramedic certification appear to be significant factors that define the EMP population in Texas.

Background: Much international drug policy debate centres on, what policies are permissible under the international drug treaties, whether member states are openly 'breaching' these treaties by changing national regulatory frameworks and shifting priorities away from a 'war on drugs' approach, and what 'flexibility' exists for policy reform and experimentation at national and local levels. Orthodox interpretations hold that the current system is a US-led 'prohibition regime' that was constructed in an extremely repressive and restrictive manner with almost no flexibility for significant national deviations. This paper challenges these orthodox interpretive frameworks and suggests no absolute and clear dichotomy between strict adherence and 'breaches' of the international treaties. MethodsThis paper uses historical analysis to highlight the flaws in orthodox policy analyses, which assume a uniform interpretation, implementation and set of policy trajectories towards a 'prohibition regime' in the 20 th century. It challenges some existing legal interpretations of the treaties through recourse to historical precedents of flexible interpretation and policy prioritisation. It then examines the legal justifications currently being formulated by member states to explain a shift towards policies which, until recently, have been viewed as outside the permissible scope of the conventions. It then examines a functionalist framework for understanding the likely contours of drug diplomacy in the post-UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016 era. Results:The paper highlights that, contrary to current policy discourses, the international control system has always been implemented in a 'flexible' manner. It demonstrates that drug control goals were repeatedly subsumed to security, development, political stability and population welfare imperatives, or what we might now refer to under the umbrella of 'development issues.' The paper further demonstrates that policy prioritisation, inherent treaty ambiguities and complexities as well as the recognition of broader issues of security and development were just some of the ways in which member states have flexibly implemented the treaties over the last century. This has frequently occurred in spite of apparent contradictions between

“Drugs” have been regulated at the international level since 1912, while cannabis has been specifically regulated since 1925. Contemporary local, national, and international cannabis regulations are now diverging, with some jurisdictions legalising its recreational production, sale and consumption. This essay explores the legal and historical complexity and contingencies around the development of international cannabis regulations and prohibitions. It highlights that the global drug control system was not solely focused on prohibition and instead was a complex mix of regulations underpinned by frequently ill-defined and unclear prohibitions. It argues that the international drug control system should not serve as a bar to national-level reforms and that the two can continue to coexist. The essay favors a flexible, functional and pragmatic interpretation and implementation of the system as the most likely and indeed preferred outcome of international cannabis policy reforms.

No abstract